Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, [McCain] said: “I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
It’s a dishonest charge by McCain. But it’s a clever one because it makes the dispute on Mac’s homefield -Iraq, instead of the economy or whatever else they might battle over the next few days. Typical McCain.
Juan McCrankypants clearly cares far more about Iraqi moms and dads and kids than he does about American moms and dads and kids.
He also doesn’t give a $hit for American Soldiers or Marines. When asked if it would be OK for them to stay in Iraq for fifty years, he said “Make it a hundred!”. He also just visits wounded Soldiers and Marines for the as he himself said, the photo op.
Mitt has always struck me as a squish on Iraq & the WoT. In the early debates, and before the CW on Iraq had started to shift in response to the Anbar “Awakening”, surge, etc. his answers seemed evasive and equivocal. I get the sense that he’s triangulating on these issues and not operating from a set of deeply held principles.
Crap, what’s a leftover Fred!head to do? I have tried to settle down to supporting Mitt, but this kind of stuff pops up. I’m still in picking the best of two “weevils” mode and Mitt still draws my pull of the lever. McShamnesty cannot be trusted with the security of our nation, regardless of his past service.
Romney has been right on this issue. It is pretty sad, that the best negative that the McCain could come up with is a lie. Anyone that believes a McCain vs Hillary election would be the most civil ever should change their name to Pollyanna.
Mitt has a clear understanding of the middle east and the Iraq war. He is also able to articulate his points off the cuff better than George W does in a prepared speech. I think ultimately this will ring hollow, as important as the war in Iraq is – I don’t see Floridians or the rest of America basing their vote on the one issue McCain has been right about and ignoring all of the others that he has been so wrong about.
I’m with you guys on the anti-McCain sentiment, but if you think Mitt’s going to be some kind of clarion voice making the case for securing Iraq and staying on offense against Islamo-fascism…
McCain is a typical political opportunist. He exaggerates his record at the expense of his rivals and the truth.
Romney has been as supportive of the war in Iraq as has McCain. ;)
Randy
I call BS. This is a pile of cow patties from the McCain camp. Sheesh! I would be disappointed in our commanders (including our President) if they did not discuss timetables with Iraq. Sh*it, I don’t want us to be in the sandbox any longer that we have to. H*ll yes, we better be talking time tables. That’s what the military does, plan strategies.
McCain is an f*ing moron if he thinks the military can perform a mission without having a plan. If he is not careful with this, he could blow what is left of his reputation with the right.
Having the military in the field without a plan is pathetic. For McCain to attack Mitt this way comes right out of Bill Clinton’s filthy little playbook.
I’m with you guys on the anti-McCain sentiment, but if you think Mitt’s going to be some kind of clarion voice making the case for securing Iraq and staying on offense against Islamo-fascism…
Not gonna happen.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 5:47 PM
This is about immigration now, not the war. Most on this site have moved past dealing with terrorism and Islamic extremism for the next four years, and are focused on Mexico.
I am not the anti-Mitt, but I don’t think he really does have a grasp. He uses the “right words” like he’s memorized them, however, so maybe it’ll rub off.
McLiar is purposely taking this out of context. But, Mitt better get used to it because the dems will do the same thing if he gets the nomination.
I just don’t get the reason why people support McShamnesty when his lies are so egregious and obvious. Perhaps it’s like the gibotry of the HuckaGibot supporters. They think the need for a Jesus candidate is so important for this country that any lie, any dishonesty, and any manipulation is justifiable.
I have/had concerns on this with both Fred and Mitt. But I was struck by Byran’s post here, specifically in the 2nd clip at about the 5:45 mark. I was impressed that he moved that answer up the que, not down.
1: an unbranded range animal; especially : a motherless calf
2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party
Symptoms/Signs of BSE:
BSE is a progressive, fatal disease of the nervous system of cattle. There is no test to diagnose BSE in live animals, although a tentative diagnosis may be made based on clinical signs. Animals with BSE may show a number of different symptoms including nervous or aggressive (cranky) behavior, abnormal posture (leaning left), lack of co-ordination (with own party) or difficulty in rising from a lying position (”It’s not amnesty!!”).
McCain #1 – 2006 – pushing for Shamnesty as hard as possible, insulting Americans left, right, and sideways.
Mccain #2 – 2007 – McCain and his “my friend” Kennedy, in the dark of night, so Congress had only a day or so to read a 1000 page bill, revised their 2006 version 90-day waiting period to a full one (sic) business day in their 2007 version. That is treachery – no doubt about it.
McCain #3 – After Shamnesty is defeated (TWICE) in 2007 – “I’ve learned my lesson”, he promises enforcement FIRST (but not last! Shamnesty comes second). More insults.
McCain #4 – Just recently on Hannity and Colmes – “I never changed my position on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Therefore, #3 was the biggest lie of the campaign so far.
Lie. Flip. Lie. Flop.
All at the expense of our nation’s border security. National security from threats abroad means nothing with wide-open borders.
Big S, since I’m a past Fredhead, I never thought I’d be agreeing with you. However, now that Fred’s toast, I have to agree, this is about immigration and McShamnesty, with his friend Juan Hernandez, is on the wrong side of the fence (so to speak). This country deserves better than McCain.
it is probably not a fair representation of Romney, but then again Romney opens himself up for this kind of thing because he has not been honest about his positions, and Romeny has been running dishonest ad about McCain (whom I do not support)
I see this board is swamped with folks who drank from the cup of Romney Koolaid. Romney is not an honest man and the better everyone gets to know him, the more you will see his Hillary like character traits
But I was struck by Byran’s post here, specifically in the 2nd clip at about the 5:45 mark. I was impressed that he moved that answer up the que, not down.
A half-truth, but a smart political move by McCain. See the Clintons in the run-up to Nevada; if McCain can take FL in its closed primary, which is a big jewel, the half-truthiness will wear off as the successive primaries arrive. He’ll have Huck’s votes, and he can probably angle for Giuliani’s too. We’ll see if FL voters pay close attention to this over the weekend and look in to the truth of the charge, but if they don’t and just accept it at face value, it can do some real damage Tuesday.
I believe Ann Coulter’s recent column on McTruthiness sums him up nicely: “Straight Talk Express takes Scenic Route to the Truth.”
Apparently lying, misrepresenting, and distorting the positions of other candidates is par for the course for McVain, and who can say they’re surprised when his best buddies are The Swimmer and Francois Kerry.
I am not the anti-Mitt, but I don’t think he really does have a grasp. He uses the “right words” like he’s memorized them, however, so maybe it’ll rub off.
Connie on January 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Connie, here’s my take, Mitt is a businessman who can run a large organization (like the country). He is rational and can make hard decisions. McCain, on the other hand seems to have some fixation about amnesty and refuses to back away from his position. This endangers the country. That is why this Fredhead will throw his support to Romney.
Heh. Careful before you go claiming to agree with me. Actually, I think there’s too much emphasis on immigration and not enough on the middle east and terrorism right now.
I believe Ann Coulter’s recent column on McTruthiness sums him up nicely: “Straight Talk Express takes Scenic Route to the Truth.”
Apparently lying, misrepresenting, and distorting the positions of other candidates is par for the course for McVain,
Ironic. Ann Coulter is a crazy b**ch who lies, distorts and misrepresents the truth all the time… but that’s ok with you as long as it’s not McCain. LOL
This game is old. All politicians play it. McCain wants us to see how virtue repays him, when he’s no longer virtuous.
He betrayed us first, and now the game’s reversed.
He wants us to trust him, and we say “but can we trust you?” There comes a day when we sell our souls, and McCain realizes desperately that the chickens are coming home to roost.
There comes that moment of reckoning for everyone, and his is here, now. He can feel the ‘terror’ draw ever nearer, the more he stares in the mirror. Just look at how desperate he looks/acts, lately. He’s almost Mephistophelian.
We need to hold our own and say to Mr. McCain now “I’ll do unto you as you did to me”.
Connie, here’s my take, Mitt is a businessman who can run a large organization (like the country)….
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I agree, but isn’t that the justification we gave for GWB too? To run the government more like a business, e.g. more efficiently? Mitt would be good for that, but it’s by no means worthy of an endzone dance. I’d also suggest that the McCain “amnesty” thing is a canard in this whole discussion. I don’t think it should be given, but to say it’s un-Conservative is ridiculous. Enter Ronald Reagan.
Romney was absolutely right, every word of it. The only way you can object to Romney is if you think we should literally stay in Iraq forever.
Buddahpundit on January 26, 2008 at 5:58 PM
What a load of crap, pretty much all the comments about Romney or McCain being right about Iraq and their talk of withdrawal.
Not one mention of controlling the Wahabist Islamic threat that the region poses, hell not one word about Islam in general. The fact of the matter is if it takes 50 years of our presence in Iraq to maintain some sort of stability in the region that’s what we have to do. Till we quit playing political games and start addressing in the real problem why the Middle East is so unstable, Islam.
Right now it’s just a lot grandstanding and chest pounding by the GOP candidates and who can surrender the quickest from the Democrats. Not a one is being serious.
They’ve both been pretty buddy-buddy with Mitt…Tough gun laws, national gas tax, pro-choice, you name it.
JetBoy on January 26, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Mitt actually had to deal with the two of them on a regular basis. It comes with the territory of being Governor of the state they are Senators for Life in. What’s McCain’s excuse?
Nevermind the “Romney is pro-choice meme” remains idiotic. I suppose next you’ll drag out the $50 abortion co-pay that was required by law before Mitt even entered office as “proof.”
Ironic. Ann Coulter is a crazy b**ch who lies, distorts and misrepresents the truth all the time… but that’s ok with you as long as it’s not McCain. LOL
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Point out a single example where Coulter lies. distorts, or misrepresents the truth.
Saying something that offends your or the libdolts’ feelings doesn’t count.
Heh. Careful before you go claiming to agree with me. Actually, I think there’s too much emphasis on immigration and not enough on the middle east and terrorism right now.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Not so sure we differ that much in assessment. National security rests on both securing the borders and protection abroad. McCain gets credit for half of the equation but flunks for border secuity. Border security and McCain/Fiengold are my two biggest problems with McCain.
CNN did a fact check on this. In April 2007, Romney said Maliki and Bush needed to have a timetable and milestones in place, but they shouldn’t make it public. Romney’s position is just as strong as McCain’s on this point. It’s simply a misrepresentation by McCain of what Romney said. Romney asked for an apology. McCain says Romney owes an apology to the troops.
This undermines McCain’s claim to having the most integrity.
Mitt actually had to deal with the two of them on a regular basis. It comes with the territory of being Governor of the state they are Senators for Life in. What’s McCain’s excuse?
So, there’s no liberal Democrats in the Senate? That McCain has to “work with”? Oh, one sided.
Nevermind the “Romney is pro-choice meme” remains idiotic
Why? Did Mitt “make a committment” to pro-choice? Or didn’t he? Does Mitt even know?
Not one mention of controlling the Wahabist Islamic threat that the region poses, hell not one word about Islam in general.
lowandslow on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there.We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century’s conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. Jihad encompasses far more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For radical Islam, there is an over-arching conflict and goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.
Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, 4/10/2007
Ironic. Ann Coulter is a crazy b**ch who lies, distorts and misrepresents the truth all the time… but that’s ok with you as long as it’s not McCain. LOL
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Ann does not lie. McCarthy was right. It’s all fact. Under FDR and Truman, the Democratic party became the defacto American Socialist Republic Party…or in shorthand – Communists!
You may not like the way Ann dresses up the truth with with and sarcasm, but sometimes the truth is so ugly some people just can’t handle it.
Not so sure we differ that much in assessment. National security rests on both securing the borders and protection abroad. McCain gets credit for half of the equation but flunks for border secuity. Border security and McCain/Fiengold are my two biggest problems with McCain.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Well, I guess we’re on the same page if it comes down to border security. I’m in favor of ramping that up to keep out those who would come here to cause the country harm, be they terrorists or organized criminal gangs. On the other hand, I can’t get too worked up about the majority of illegal immigrants who are here to do manual labor, and wouldn’t mind an amnesty for them down the road, on the condition that the border is secured. I get the feeling that most others who comment here would disagree with me on that.
Good point for why some voted for Bush 43. However, that was not my motivation when I voted for him. As a “public servent” in Texas under GWB I harbored no illusions regarding is business acumen (or lack thereof). I’m willing to trust my intuition (and direct knowledge of how GB43 ran Texas) here, Romney is several cuts above GB43 with regard to his business ability.
My Hombre Juan will win and be your Gringos next el Presidente Juan the Uno with me the power behind his throne.
You all had better learn to APRENDER ESPANOL!!!
If you all can not aprender espanol by the time Juan is sworn in as el Presidente de America del Norte he will be very angry and you all know how angry he can get.
He only believes in not waterboarding poor muslims, he is perfectly bien with waterboarding nativist Gringos!
I am not the anti-Mitt, but I don’t think he really does have a grasp. He uses the “right words” like he’s memorized them, however, so maybe it’ll rub off.
Connie on January 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
At this point all we can judge someone by are 3 things:
1) What they say
2) What they’ve done in the past
3) Who their friends are
I think Mitt Romney gets a solid check mark on all 3 of these things.
1) Mitt like you say is using the “right words”. But, more than that he has gone where Bush would not calling the terrorists rightfully “Jihadists” much to the objection of CAIR and the ACLU. Even McCain doesn’t use that term as it is not considered PC. Romney is also the only candidate that has uncategorically supported keeping Guantanamo open.
2) Romney’s refusal of security for the former President of Iran when he came to speak at Harvard, is exactly the type of stand we expect from our leaders. It raised a big stink in Massachusetts and made him the scorn of the Boston Globe. Romney stood up to International pressure, and pressure from the State Department.
3) Mitt Romney has been receiving counter-terrorism and national security advise from his friend Coffer Black. Black was listed as one of the reason the NY Times said it would never endorse Mitt. Black is the former Director of the CIA’s Counter-terrorist Center, and one of the founders of Blackwater USA.
Till we quit playing political games and start addressing in the real problem why the Middle East is so unstable, Islam.
lowandslow on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Do you think Iraq will move away from Islam? Do you think Iraq will begin adhering to some other-than-Koranic concept of what “Islam” means and do we remain there until they do adhere to this new peaceful and tolerant concept of Islam?
It makes sense to have a base in Iraq for a good long time but you can’t tell them that they are going to have a base in their country for a long time. The best you can do is say “We’ll withdraw eventually on a timetable unbeknownst to al qaeda”. But staying there until they become civil is an absurd thought.
I can’t get too worked up about the majority of illegal immigrants who are here to do manual labor
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
You might be if you were in a job area where they were driving down your wages or tried to go to a hospital that was over crowded or closed because of them or your kids went to a school that was overcrowded because of them or if your wife was killed in a hit and run by one of them.
Look you all know what this is about.McCain knows Romney is in his element talking about and dealing with the economy which is now listed as the number one issue.McCain has to drop names about who’s on his team to deal with the economy and admits to not knowing much about it so what does he do or his handlers tell him to do CHANGE THE SUBJECT to his strong point the war in Iraq and terrorism.I always wonder how many of those veterans would support Mccain if they knew the gory details of that amnesty bill he pimped last year.The American Legion came out against that bill but alas the immigration debate last Spring seems to be in the background.We all know by the members who are on team McCain what future immigration bills would look like under president McCain.Doesn’t bother me if Clinton or Obama win if we’re left with McCain.I see no difference between the two on immigration which is the issue we will be voting on.No we’d never vote for Clinton or Obama but we wouldn’t vote for McCain!!!!
I live in the heart of Texas. I think I can be realistic about this. (maybe not, who knows?). Do I think we can deport all illegal aliens? Do I think we can throw all illegal aliens in prison? “No” to both of those questions. However, I do believe we can secure the borders (including a fence) and we can regulate work visas in this country. Those without authorization will have to leave and apply. Thus, the borders can be regulated for security purposes, seal, protect, and atritt.
I’m with you except for the attrition argument. We need the labor, and those illegals who have taken the chance to come here and work are, in my opinion, the kind of people we would have to look for to fill the manual jobs that need filling. That, of course, excludes those who have come here to establish criminal enterprises. My sense of fairness does not compel me to insist that those who are already here leave and “go to the back of the line”; we’ve been lax on law enforcement, and bear some of the responsibility for their presence here as well. As I see it, if the border is secured, amnesty is a net plus, since it legalizes a workforce that is already here, brings them into the tax base, and will remove the disincentive to integration into society that results in ghettoization of immigrants.
Ironic. Ann Coulter is a crazy b**ch who lies, distorts and misrepresents the truth all the time… but that’s ok with you as long as it’s not McCain. LOL
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Ann Coulter is very sarcastic, and I’m sure she says things that you think are wrong. That doesn’t make them lies.
I completely understand people who don’t like her tone, or think she does conservatives more harm than good. But if you don’t grasp that she’s being sarcastic, then your criticism will always be off base.
But lying and distorting? I don’t think you can find any real evidence for it. And liberals have certainly tried.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Well, I guess we’re on the same page if it comes down to border security.
Yup. It is a major part of national security, with 140,000 OTM’s caught (1/4 of those that crossed?) in a recent year, including ‘immigrants’ from all major terror-sponsoring countries. We need the back door locked.
… I can’t get too worked up about the majority of illegal immigrants who are here to do manual labor, and wouldn’t mind an amnesty for them down the road, on the condition that the border is secured. I get the feeling that most others who comment here would disagree with me on that.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Here is where we differ. We have had 6 additional smaller amnesties since the big one in 1986. All of them have encouraged more illegal immigration. They have not alleviated the problem, and in fact have aggravated the problem. Makes sense that it does, since those south (or north) of the border who have been considering breaking our laws see that we have been consistently REWARDING bad behavior. Every time there is even TALK of amnesty in Congress, there are more news stories of a rush to the border in anticipation.
In addition to encouraging more illegal immigration, no matter how high and wide a fence we build (and we should!), amnesty is a smack in the face to both citizens and those immigrants who respect our laws and wait in line.
I prefer to reward those who respect our laws and punish those who break our laws. Awarding illegal immigrants with what they came here to steal in the first place – residency – encourages more of the same.
We have to discourage, not encourage, bad behavior at every turn. No jobs, no benefits, etc. This is how it’s working in four states so far. 46 to go. And it’s what America wants – even Dems. Attrition is a winning issue – if a poll offers all three choices, not just the tired false dichotomy of, “We can’t deport 12 million … THEREFORE we must make them citizens.”
Final question: if the judge in your town awards a convicted burglar the power tools he stole from your house, even if a small fine is imposed, do you think burglaries would a) increase b) decrease in your town?
Really final question: would you be pi$$ed?
… and those illegals who have taken the chance to come here and work are, in my opinion, the kind of people we would have to look for to fill the manual jobs that need filling. That, of course, excludes those who have come here to establish criminal enterprises….Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM
These “kind of people” have done one of these 3 things:
1) worked for cash – the IRS frowns on this.
2) used a stolen social security number – ID theft and a felony.
3) made up a fake social security number (not issued yet) – a $250,000 fine.
…amnesty is a net plus, since it legalizes a workforce that is already here, brings them into the tax base, and will remove the disincentive to integration into society that results in ghettoization of immigrants.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM
The ‘legalization’ process as recommended by McCain-Kennedy allowed the DHS a generous one business day to process 12 to 30 million Z visa applications. (Last year DHS couldn’t process passports for our own citizens in 6 months.) If DHS did not reject it in that period, the illegal alien got PERMANENT legal residency, freedom from threat of deportation, permisssion to leave and re-enter our country at will, etc.
No time for background checks, no time for health checks for dangerous new strains of TB, etc. Obviously impractical. Listen to the illegal aliens explain why attrition is working just fine.
This game is old. All politicians play it. McCain wants us to see how virtue repays him, when he’s no longer virtuous.
He betrayed us first, and now the game’s reversed.
Entelechy on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Out of mind, out of sight,
Till the moon rose tonight
All at once, I felt a chill
In a spill of moonlight, Entelechy St. Just was there
Tracking down Chauvelin McCain everywhere
You forgot to post the clips of Romney in the first, second and third debate(pre surge) where Romney says the SAME thing and advocates a phased withdrawal.
Remember this was when popular opinion was in favor of pulling out of iraq…Romney was trying to be the one guy that supported pullout.
Now that pullout is no longer popular..Romney wants to stay there and hope we forget about his previous position!
We don’t need the labor, the Serf master plantation owners (latter day slavers), who make lots of “campaign contributions” want the cheap serf labor so that they can get more money with the tax payers picking up all the huge side costs.
I live in the heart of Texas. I think I can be realistic about this. (maybe not, who knows?). Do I think we can deport all illegal aliens? Do I think we can throw all illegal aliens in prison? “No” to both of those questions. However, I do believe we can secure the borders (including a fence) and we can regulate work visas in this country. Those without authorization will have to leave and apply. Thus, the borders can be regulated for security purposes, seal, protect, and atritt.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Bingo.
There is no need to try to answer Bush’s and McCain’s tired old false dichotomy. They are disingenuous at best, and usually lying, when they refuse to offer the obvious third choice, attrition through enforcement, which even Democrats favor 50% to 36%, with 11% for mass deportations!
Attrition is a humane, logical, fair, and just solution. I only wish Mitt would shout it out loudly and clearly. It is a winning issue – now and in November.
We shall soon see how effective McCain is as a Commander. It may turn out that he wins the battle but loses the war. These charges are too easy to dispute and the only thing that stands in Mitt’s way in Florida is that he is may be running out of time to effectively dispute them.
However, there is plenty of time until February 8th to destroy McCain with this lie, immigration, his alliance with the Dems. Soros, and so forth.
We don’t need the labor, the Serf master plantation owners (latter day slavers), who make lots of “campaign contributions” want the cheap serf labor so that they can get more money with the tax payers picking up all the huge side costs.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Dude, labor is a commodity. To sustain our economy with a huge wave of retiring workers, we’re either going to have to import the labor to produce here, or export the production to where the labor is. Currently, we’re doing a bit of both.
Also, your comparison of the employers of illegal immigrants to slave owners is ridiculous. If there’s nothing stopping those immigrants from coming here, there’s nothing stopping them from leaving, either. They make the rational and self-interested choice that it is better for them to work for low wages in the USA than for whatever they get in their home country.
This is about immigration now, not the war. Most on this site have moved past dealing with terrorism and Islamic extremism for the next four years, and are focused on Mexico.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM
This is both untrue and unfair. I believe most of us are paying close attention to both issues and I think most of us know that the Islamic extremism is the bigger issue. We also know that there is an organic relationship between the issues. Both represent us defending who we are and the idea that we don’t have to submit any alien ideologies.
Seemingly most of the comments here are anti-McCain. But the plain truth is that Romney would not have held fast in Iraq. McCain’s charge against Romney is on target whether the readers here want to accept it or not. There is a stark contrast between the two with respect to Iraq.
John McCain did not follow what was convenient when he stood up with respect to the Iraq War, first in criticizing the prior light footprint strategy and then in vocally supporting the surge and General Petraeus when Democrats were declaring defeat and most Republicans were either looking for a way out or looking at their feet. McCain was right; he has visited the troops often; his son in the Marines has been serving in Iraq. McCain does know his stuff when it comes to military matters and foreign policy. That’s why he has, among others, the endorsements of former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig, former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball, General Norman Schwartzkof, and former national security officials Bud MacFarlane, James Woolsey, Tom Kean, Tom Ridge and Robert Inman.
How many times has Romney visited the troops in Iraq? The answer is ZERO. General Petraeus has stated that the central front in the war with the radical Islamic extremists is Iraq. How can Romney be considered Commander in Chief material when he has not been in real contact with the troops in Iraq? Support of the Iraq mission simply has not a vocal part of Romney’s campaign. Romney did not put himself out there on the issue like McCain has; the way Romney explained it in one debate was that he was busy with being Massachusetts Governor.
The truth is that on issues of the military, war and foreign policy, McCain is vastly superior to Romney. No amount of anti-McCain diatribe on this site, which really is hot air, can change that.
Is english your second langauge? Romney says no such thing dude! Conditional performance metrics determined by professional soldiers in concert with politicians that share a common goal are a long way from withdrawal.
Darling, life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
All HA at this will glance
Even if they know not how to dance
Percy, Percy,
You have mercy
Google all of this will store
Forevermore
Dude, labor is a commodity. To sustain our economy with a huge wave of retiring workers, we’re either going to have to import the labor to produce here, or export the production to where the labor is. Currently, we’re doing a bit of both.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
What absolute nonsense! People retire now, and in the past the aged worked less. Even during times of population decline. If there is a labor shortage, we’ll just have to make wages high enough to entice the elderly to work some, as they can do. And perhaps rather than have strong, young American men stack vegetables in the grocery stores, we can have them roof houses. I really can do without my moments of lust watching the muscular men stack the g**d**n vegetables. Let ninety year old women stack vegetables, if it must be done. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus would rather the vegetables be left in jumbled piles, and so would I.
Phil Byler on January 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Typical McCain logic: name drop and puff your resume’. McCain can hardly manage his emotions. He’s vindictive and he wears his feelings on his sleeves. He is acting like he’s owed this, and when he sees it slipping (just like his BFF’s the Clintons) he starts bending the “Straight Talk Express.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
It’s a dishonest charge by McCain. But it’s a clever one because it makes the dispute on Mac’s homefield -Iraq, instead of the economy or whatever else they might battle over the next few days. Typical McCain.
Spirit of 1776 on January 26, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Juan McCrankypants clearly cares far more about Iraqi moms and dads and kids than he does about American moms and dads and kids.
He also doesn’t give a $hit for American Soldiers or Marines. When asked if it would be OK for them to stay in Iraq for fifty years, he said “Make it a hundred!”. He also just visits wounded Soldiers and Marines for the as he himself said, the photo op.
#uck him and the donkey he rode in on.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 5:38 PM
gramps is getting desperate
windansea on January 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Thank you for your service McCain. I still think you are a piece of something that goes down the toilet.
mred on January 26, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Mitt has always struck me as a squish on Iraq & the WoT. In the early debates, and before the CW on Iraq had started to shift in response to the Anbar “Awakening”, surge, etc. his answers seemed evasive and equivocal. I get the sense that he’s triangulating on these issues and not operating from a set of deeply held principles.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Crap, what’s a leftover Fred!head to do? I have tried to settle down to supporting Mitt, but this kind of stuff pops up. I’m still in picking the best of two “weevils” mode and Mitt still draws my pull of the lever. McShamnesty cannot be trusted with the security of our nation, regardless of his past service.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Romney has been right on this issue. It is pretty sad, that the best negative that the McCain could come up with is a lie. Anyone that believes a McCain vs Hillary election would be the most civil ever should change their name to Pollyanna.
Mitt has a clear understanding of the middle east and the Iraq war. He is also able to articulate his points off the cuff better than George W does in a prepared speech. I think ultimately this will ring hollow, as important as the war in Iraq is – I don’t see Floridians or the rest of America basing their vote on the one issue McCain has been right about and ignoring all of the others that he has been so wrong about.
joncoltonis on January 26, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Exit Answer: McCain is the real flip-flopper and he’s a desperate political weasel.
Greenhorn on January 26, 2008 at 5:41 PM
They’re politicians, people. They lie.
That’s one reason the NYT endorsed ol’ John, no doubt.
MrScribbler on January 26, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Greenhorn on January 26, 2008 at 5:41 p.m.
True Dat. About the only thing McCain has not flipped on is shamnesty (even though he has pretended to flip on that issue at times as well).
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I’m with you guys on the anti-McCain sentiment, but if you think Mitt’s going to be some kind of clarion voice making the case for securing Iraq and staying on offense against Islamo-fascism…
Not gonna happen.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 5:47 PM
It is a clear sign of desperation by McCain.
And is is a shameful bit of dishonesty by Mr. Straight Talker.
Both good signs if you are for Mitt or just plain-old-against McLame.
Always Right on January 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM
McCain is a typical political opportunist. He exaggerates his record at the expense of his rivals and the truth.
Romney has been as supportive of the war in Iraq as has McCain. ;)
Randy
williars on January 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM
about 400,000 have already voted in Florida, this should favor Rudy, which in turn favors Mitt vs McCain
Hopefully Mitt’s performance in the debate will help him win over the undecided, which I understand are considerable
windansea on January 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Those two matters are not the same thing, not at all, wait and see.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I call BS. This is a pile of cow patties from the McCain camp. Sheesh! I would be disappointed in our commanders (including our President) if they did not discuss timetables with Iraq. Sh*it, I don’t want us to be in the sandbox any longer that we have to. H*ll yes, we better be talking time tables. That’s what the military does, plan strategies.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 5:53 PM
McCain is an f*ing moron if he thinks the military can perform a mission without having a plan. If he is not careful with this, he could blow what is left of his reputation with the right.
Having the military in the field without a plan is pathetic. For McCain to attack Mitt this way comes right out of Bill Clinton’s filthy little playbook.
pedestrian on January 26, 2008 at 5:53 PM
This is about immigration now, not the war. Most on this site have moved past dealing with terrorism and Islamic extremism for the next four years, and are focused on Mexico.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Expressing the will to withdraw from this disaster is reason enough for me to support him over McCain.
DMeNTe on January 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I am not the anti-Mitt, but I don’t think he really does have a grasp. He uses the “right words” like he’s memorized them, however, so maybe it’ll rub off.
Connie on January 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
McLiar is purposely taking this out of context. But, Mitt better get used to it because the dems will do the same thing if he gets the nomination.
I just don’t get the reason why people support McShamnesty when his lies are so egregious and obvious. Perhaps it’s like the gibotry of the HuckaGibot supporters. They think the need for a Jesus candidate is so important for this country that any lie, any dishonesty, and any manipulation is justifiable.
It’s sickening.
csdeven on January 26, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Romney was absolutely right, every word of it. The only way you can object to Romney is if you think we should literally stay in Iraq forever.
Buddahpundit on January 26, 2008 at 5:58 PM
I have/had concerns on this with both Fred and Mitt. But I was struck by Byran’s post here, specifically in the 2nd clip at about the 5:45 mark. I was impressed that he moved that answer up the que, not down.
Spirit of 1776 on January 26, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Fixed it for you.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Mkay?
DMeNTe on January 26, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Deety on January 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Yeah…McCain is REAL DESPERATE
JetBoy on January 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Roger that. Big mistake, though, IMO.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM
McCain is playing Bush-politics… good for him
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:05 PM
McCain #1 – 2006 – pushing for Shamnesty as hard as possible, insulting Americans left, right, and sideways.
Mccain #2 – 2007 – McCain and his “my friend” Kennedy, in the dark of night, so Congress had only a day or so to read a 1000 page bill, revised their 2006 version 90-day waiting period to a full one (sic) business day in their 2007 version. That is treachery – no doubt about it.
McCain #3 – After Shamnesty is defeated (TWICE) in 2007 – “I’ve learned my lesson”, he promises enforcement FIRST (but not last! Shamnesty comes second). More insults.
McCain #4 – Just recently on Hannity and Colmes – “I never changed my position on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Therefore, #3 was the biggest lie of the campaign so far.
Lie. Flip. Lie. Flop.
All at the expense of our nation’s border security. National security from threats abroad means nothing with wide-open borders.
fred5678 on January 26, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Big S, since I’m a past Fredhead, I never thought I’d be agreeing with you. However, now that Fred’s toast, I have to agree, this is about immigration and McShamnesty, with his friend Juan Hernandez, is on the wrong side of the fence (so to speak). This country deserves better than McCain.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:05 PM
it is probably not a fair representation of Romney, but then again Romney opens himself up for this kind of thing because he has not been honest about his positions, and Romeny has been running dishonest ad about McCain (whom I do not support)
I see this board is swamped with folks who drank from the cup of Romney Koolaid. Romney is not an honest man and the better everyone gets to know him, the more you will see his Hillary like character traits
georgealbert on January 26, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Is there anyway Mitt survives Rudy dropping out and all his supporters jumping ship to McCain?
Ludwig on January 26, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Compared to McCain’s other position, the idea of establishing benchmarks for Iraq doesn’t scare me that much. Even Bush talks about them.
AbaddonsReign on January 26, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Good link, thanks.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM
A half-truth, but a smart political move by McCain. See the Clintons in the run-up to Nevada; if McCain can take FL in its closed primary, which is a big jewel, the half-truthiness will wear off as the successive primaries arrive. He’ll have Huck’s votes, and he can probably angle for Giuliani’s too. We’ll see if FL voters pay close attention to this over the weekend and look in to the truth of the charge, but if they don’t and just accept it at face value, it can do some real damage Tuesday.
Vizzini on January 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM
McCain shows his true colors.
And I said it once, but I’ll say it again – anyone held captive and tortured for several years…they just ain’t all there.
The man is ca-razy.
mksmithwriter on January 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I believe Ann Coulter’s recent column on McTruthiness sums him up nicely: “Straight Talk Express takes Scenic Route to the Truth.”
Apparently lying, misrepresenting, and distorting the positions of other candidates is par for the course for McVain, and who can say they’re surprised when his best buddies are The Swimmer and Francois Kerry.
BKennedy on January 26, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Can you give examples? It’s easy to talk in generalities, but at least back it up with some substance.
lan astaslem on January 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I am not the anti-Mitt, but I don’t think he really does have a grasp. He uses the “right words” like he’s memorized them, however, so maybe it’ll rub off.
Connie on January 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Connie, here’s my take, Mitt is a businessman who can run a large organization (like the country). He is rational and can make hard decisions. McCain, on the other hand seems to have some fixation about amnesty and refuses to back away from his position. This endangers the country. That is why this Fredhead will throw his support to Romney.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Welcome.
Spirit of 1776 on January 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Heh. Careful before you go claiming to agree with me. Actually, I think there’s too much emphasis on immigration and not enough on the middle east and terrorism right now.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM
They’ve both been pretty buddy-buddy with Mitt…Tough gun laws, national gas tax, pro-choice, you name it.
JetBoy on January 26, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Ironic. Ann Coulter is a crazy b**ch who lies, distorts and misrepresents the truth all the time… but that’s ok with you as long as it’s not McCain. LOL
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
How America goes is far more important to America than how Iraq goes and much more within an American President’s power to influence.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Nice. LMAO
iurockhead on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
This game is old. All politicians play it. McCain wants us to see how virtue repays him, when he’s no longer virtuous.
He betrayed us first, and now the game’s reversed.
He wants us to trust him, and we say “but can we trust you?” There comes a day when we sell our souls, and McCain realizes desperately that the chickens are coming home to roost.
There comes that moment of reckoning for everyone, and his is here, now. He can feel the ‘terror’ draw ever nearer, the more he stares in the mirror. Just look at how desperate he looks/acts, lately. He’s almost Mephistophelian.
We need to hold our own and say to Mr. McCain now “I’ll do unto you as you did to me”.
Only the blind can’t see this.
Entelechy on January 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I agree, but isn’t that the justification we gave for GWB too? To run the government more like a business, e.g. more efficiently? Mitt would be good for that, but it’s by no means worthy of an endzone dance. I’d also suggest that the McCain “amnesty” thing is a canard in this whole discussion. I don’t think it should be given, but to say it’s un-Conservative is ridiculous. Enter Ronald Reagan.
Vizzini on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
What a load of crap, pretty much all the comments about Romney or McCain being right about Iraq and their talk of withdrawal.
Not one mention of controlling the Wahabist Islamic threat that the region poses, hell not one word about Islam in general. The fact of the matter is if it takes 50 years of our presence in Iraq to maintain some sort of stability in the region that’s what we have to do. Till we quit playing political games and start addressing in the real problem why the Middle East is so unstable, Islam.
Right now it’s just a lot grandstanding and chest pounding by the GOP candidates and who can surrender the quickest from the Democrats. Not a one is being serious.
lowandslow on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Mitt actually had to deal with the two of them on a regular basis. It comes with the territory of being Governor of the state they are Senators for Life in. What’s McCain’s excuse?
Nevermind the “Romney is pro-choice meme” remains idiotic. I suppose next you’ll drag out the $50 abortion co-pay that was required by law before Mitt even entered office as “proof.”
BKennedy on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
There. Fixed it for you.
Do you understand now why your dishonest posting tactics are subversive to honest debate in internet forums? Imagine if everyone posted like that.
Buddahpundit on January 26, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Point out a single example where Coulter lies. distorts, or misrepresents the truth.
Saying something that offends your or the libdolts’ feelings doesn’t count.
BKennedy on January 26, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Heh. Careful before you go claiming to agree with me. Actually, I think there’s too much emphasis on immigration and not enough on the middle east and terrorism right now.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Not so sure we differ that much in assessment. National security rests on both securing the borders and protection abroad. McCain gets credit for half of the equation but flunks for border secuity. Border security and McCain/Fiengold are my two biggest problems with McCain.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Whoa there, bodhisattva.
I’m no fan of McCain (absolutely will not vote for him), and “fixed it for you” quotes are pretty much a staple of internet life.
Chill.
Purple Fury on January 26, 2008 at 6:18 PM
CNN did a fact check on this. In April 2007, Romney said Maliki and Bush needed to have a timetable and milestones in place, but they shouldn’t make it public. Romney’s position is just as strong as McCain’s on this point. It’s simply a misrepresentation by McCain of what Romney said. Romney asked for an apology. McCain says Romney owes an apology to the troops.
This undermines McCain’s claim to having the most integrity.
indythinker on January 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM
So, there’s no liberal Democrats in the Senate? That McCain has to “work with”? Oh, one sided.
Why? Did Mitt “make a committment” to pro-choice? Or didn’t he? Does Mitt even know?
JetBoy on January 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Ironic. And delusional. :-)
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Deety on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Ann does not lie. McCarthy was right. It’s all fact. Under FDR and Truman, the Democratic party became the defacto American Socialist Republic Party…or in shorthand – Communists!
You may not like the way Ann dresses up the truth with with and sarcasm, but sometimes the truth is so ugly some people just can’t handle it.
Like you, obviously.
mksmithwriter on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Well, I guess we’re on the same page if it comes down to border security. I’m in favor of ramping that up to keep out those who would come here to cause the country harm, be they terrorists or organized criminal gangs. On the other hand, I can’t get too worked up about the majority of illegal immigrants who are here to do manual labor, and wouldn’t mind an amnesty for them down the road, on the condition that the border is secured. I get the feeling that most others who comment here would disagree with me on that.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Vizzini on January 26, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Good point for why some voted for Bush 43. However, that was not my motivation when I voted for him. As a “public servent” in Texas under GWB I harbored no illusions regarding is business acumen (or lack thereof). I’m willing to trust my intuition (and direct knowledge of how GB43 ran Texas) here, Romney is several cuts above GB43 with regard to his business ability.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
My Hombre Juan will win and be your Gringos next el Presidente Juan the Uno with me the power behind his throne.
You all had better learn to APRENDER ESPANOL!!!
If you all can not aprender espanol by the time Juan is sworn in as el Presidente de America del Norte he will be very angry and you all know how angry he can get.
He only believes in not waterboarding poor muslims, he is perfectly bien with waterboarding nativist Gringos!
VinyFoxy on January 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM
At this point all we can judge someone by are 3 things:
1) What they say
2) What they’ve done in the past
3) Who their friends are
I think Mitt Romney gets a solid check mark on all 3 of these things.
1) Mitt like you say is using the “right words”. But, more than that he has gone where Bush would not calling the terrorists rightfully “Jihadists” much to the objection of CAIR and the ACLU. Even McCain doesn’t use that term as it is not considered PC. Romney is also the only candidate that has uncategorically supported keeping Guantanamo open.
2) Romney’s refusal of security for the former President of Iran when he came to speak at Harvard, is exactly the type of stand we expect from our leaders. It raised a big stink in Massachusetts and made him the scorn of the Boston Globe. Romney stood up to International pressure, and pressure from the State Department.
3) Mitt Romney has been receiving counter-terrorism and national security advise from his friend Coffer Black. Black was listed as one of the reason the NY Times said it would never endorse Mitt. Black is the former Director of the CIA’s Counter-terrorist Center, and one of the founders of Blackwater USA.
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/confronting-radical-jihad
joncoltonis on January 26, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Do you think Iraq will move away from Islam? Do you think Iraq will begin adhering to some other-than-Koranic concept of what “Islam” means and do we remain there until they do adhere to this new peaceful and tolerant concept of Islam?
It makes sense to have a base in Iraq for a good long time but you can’t tell them that they are going to have a base in their country for a long time. The best you can do is say “We’ll withdraw eventually on a timetable unbeknownst to al qaeda”. But staying there until they become civil is an absurd thought.
Buddahpundit on January 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM
So that’s a no then, you can’t find any such examples. Thanks for playing, and have a wonderful day.
BKennedy on January 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM
You might be if you were in a job area where they were driving down your wages or tried to go to a hospital that was over crowded or closed because of them or your kids went to a school that was overcrowded because of them or if your wife was killed in a hit and run by one of them.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 6:31 PM
how sad
Opinionnation on January 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Look you all know what this is about.McCain knows Romney is in his element talking about and dealing with the economy which is now listed as the number one issue.McCain has to drop names about who’s on his team to deal with the economy and admits to not knowing much about it so what does he do or his handlers tell him to do CHANGE THE SUBJECT to his strong point the war in Iraq and terrorism.I always wonder how many of those veterans would support Mccain if they knew the gory details of that amnesty bill he pimped last year.The American Legion came out against that bill but alas the immigration debate last Spring seems to be in the background.We all know by the members who are on team McCain what future immigration bills would look like under president McCain.Doesn’t bother me if Clinton or Obama win if we’re left with McCain.I see no difference between the two on immigration which is the issue we will be voting on.No we’d never vote for Clinton or Obama but we wouldn’t vote for McCain!!!!
PTN 39 on January 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I live in the heart of Texas. I think I can be realistic about this. (maybe not, who knows?). Do I think we can deport all illegal aliens? Do I think we can throw all illegal aliens in prison? “No” to both of those questions. However, I do believe we can secure the borders (including a fence) and we can regulate work visas in this country. Those without authorization will have to leave and apply. Thus, the borders can be regulated for security purposes, seal, protect, and atritt.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:35 PM
My deepest condolences for anyone with that kind of loss, but no one’s wife was hit by ‘them’. It was an individual that did it, not a group.
pedestrian on January 26, 2008 at 6:39 PM
McCain: “Don’t for Romney because he said what I said but he did not say it when I said it or where I said it or to whom I said it.”
EJDolbow on January 26, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
yeah, but that individual should not have been here. We can seal the borders and atritt those currently in country.
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Oops, that last entry was to:
pedestrian on January 26, 2008 at 6:39 PM
(dang, gotta check that preview)
second digit on January 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
I’m with you except for the attrition argument. We need the labor, and those illegals who have taken the chance to come here and work are, in my opinion, the kind of people we would have to look for to fill the manual jobs that need filling. That, of course, excludes those who have come here to establish criminal enterprises. My sense of fairness does not compel me to insist that those who are already here leave and “go to the back of the line”; we’ve been lax on law enforcement, and bear some of the responsibility for their presence here as well. As I see it, if the border is secured, amnesty is a net plus, since it legalizes a workforce that is already here, brings them into the tax base, and will remove the disincentive to integration into society that results in ghettoization of immigrants.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Ann Coulter is very sarcastic, and I’m sure she says things that you think are wrong. That doesn’t make them lies.
I completely understand people who don’t like her tone, or think she does conservatives more harm than good. But if you don’t grasp that she’s being sarcastic, then your criticism will always be off base.
But lying and distorting? I don’t think you can find any real evidence for it. And liberals have certainly tried.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Yup. It is a major part of national security, with 140,000 OTM’s caught (1/4 of those that crossed?) in a recent year, including ‘immigrants’ from all major terror-sponsoring countries. We need the back door locked.
Here is where we differ. We have had 6 additional smaller amnesties since the big one in 1986. All of them have encouraged more illegal immigration. They have not alleviated the problem, and in fact have aggravated the problem. Makes sense that it does, since those south (or north) of the border who have been considering breaking our laws see that we have been consistently REWARDING bad behavior. Every time there is even TALK of amnesty in Congress, there are more news stories of a rush to the border in anticipation.
In addition to encouraging more illegal immigration, no matter how high and wide a fence we build (and we should!), amnesty is a smack in the face to both citizens and those immigrants who respect our laws and wait in line.
I prefer to reward those who respect our laws and punish those who break our laws. Awarding illegal immigrants with what they came here to steal in the first place – residency – encourages more of the same.
We have to discourage, not encourage, bad behavior at every turn. No jobs, no benefits, etc. This is how it’s working in four states so far. 46 to go. And it’s what America wants – even Dems. Attrition is a winning issue – if a poll offers all three choices, not just the tired false dichotomy of, “We can’t deport 12 million … THEREFORE we must make them citizens.”
Final question: if the judge in your town awards a convicted burglar the power tools he stole from your house, even if a small fine is imposed, do you think burglaries would a) increase b) decrease in your town?
Really final question: would you be pi$$ed?
fred5678 on January 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM
These “kind of people” have done one of these 3 things:
1) worked for cash – the IRS frowns on this.
2) used a stolen social security number – ID theft and a felony.
3) made up a fake social security number (not issued yet) – a $250,000 fine.
Which of these is not a problem to you?
fred5678 on January 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM
The ‘legalization’ process as recommended by McCain-Kennedy allowed the DHS a generous one business day to process 12 to 30 million Z visa applications. (Last year DHS couldn’t process passports for our own citizens in 6 months.) If DHS did not reject it in that period, the illegal alien got PERMANENT legal residency, freedom from threat of deportation, permisssion to leave and re-enter our country at will, etc.
No time for background checks, no time for health checks for dangerous new strains of TB, etc. Obviously impractical. Listen to the illegal aliens explain why attrition is working just fine.
fred5678 on January 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
georgealbert on January 26, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Going once….going twice……hurry up I’m getting thirsty!
dmann on January 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Out of mind, out of sight,
Till the moon rose tonight
All at once, I felt a chill
In a spill of moonlight, Entelechy St. Just was there
Tracking down Chauvelin McCain everywhere
Percy on January 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM
You forgot to post the clips of Romney in the first, second and third debate(pre surge) where Romney says the SAME thing and advocates a phased withdrawal.
Remember this was when popular opinion was in favor of pulling out of iraq…Romney was trying to be the one guy that supported pullout.
Now that pullout is no longer popular..Romney wants to stay there and hope we forget about his previous position!
There goes Romney again…..blowing in the wind!
HaraldHardrada on January 26, 2008 at 7:17 PM
If you can find any videos where he says that, link them.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 7:25 PM
We?
What’s this “We” malarkey?
We don’t need the labor, the Serf master plantation owners (latter day slavers), who make lots of “campaign contributions” want the cheap serf labor so that they can get more money with the tax payers picking up all the huge side costs.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Bingo.
There is no need to try to answer Bush’s and McCain’s tired old false dichotomy. They are disingenuous at best, and usually lying, when they refuse to offer the obvious third choice, attrition through enforcement, which even Democrats favor 50% to 36%, with 11% for mass deportations!
Attrition is a humane, logical, fair, and just solution. I only wish Mitt would shout it out loudly and clearly. It is a winning issue – now and in November.
And it’s working so well that Mexico is complaining!
fred5678 on January 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
There’s one right at the top of the page.
Don’t you remember the debates where Romney was trying to be the one candidate who would support withdrawal?
I beleive you can find them on you tube if you want to go thru the whole debate.
HaraldHardrada on January 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
We shall soon see how effective McCain is as a Commander. It may turn out that he wins the battle but loses the war. These charges are too easy to dispute and the only thing that stands in Mitt’s way in Florida is that he is may be running out of time to effectively dispute them.
However, there is plenty of time until February 8th to destroy McCain with this lie, immigration, his alliance with the Dems. Soros, and so forth.
Buy Danish on January 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Dude, labor is a commodity. To sustain our economy with a huge wave of retiring workers, we’re either going to have to import the labor to produce here, or export the production to where the labor is. Currently, we’re doing a bit of both.
Also, your comparison of the employers of illegal immigrants to slave owners is ridiculous. If there’s nothing stopping those immigrants from coming here, there’s nothing stopping them from leaving, either. They make the rational and self-interested choice that it is better for them to work for low wages in the USA than for whatever they get in their home country.
Big S on January 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
This is both untrue and unfair. I believe most of us are paying close attention to both issues and I think most of us know that the Islamic extremism is the bigger issue. We also know that there is an organic relationship between the issues. Both represent us defending who we are and the idea that we don’t have to submit any alien ideologies.
thuja on January 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
McLame is talking out of his a$$ again.
Mojack420 on January 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Seemingly most of the comments here are anti-McCain. But the plain truth is that Romney would not have held fast in Iraq. McCain’s charge against Romney is on target whether the readers here want to accept it or not. There is a stark contrast between the two with respect to Iraq.
John McCain did not follow what was convenient when he stood up with respect to the Iraq War, first in criticizing the prior light footprint strategy and then in vocally supporting the surge and General Petraeus when Democrats were declaring defeat and most Republicans were either looking for a way out or looking at their feet. McCain was right; he has visited the troops often; his son in the Marines has been serving in Iraq. McCain does know his stuff when it comes to military matters and foreign policy. That’s why he has, among others, the endorsements of former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig, former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball, General Norman Schwartzkof, and former national security officials Bud MacFarlane, James Woolsey, Tom Kean, Tom Ridge and Robert Inman.
How many times has Romney visited the troops in Iraq? The answer is ZERO. General Petraeus has stated that the central front in the war with the radical Islamic extremists is Iraq. How can Romney be considered Commander in Chief material when he has not been in real contact with the troops in Iraq? Support of the Iraq mission simply has not a vocal part of Romney’s campaign. Romney did not put himself out there on the issue like McCain has; the way Romney explained it in one debate was that he was busy with being Massachusetts Governor.
The truth is that on issues of the military, war and foreign policy, McCain is vastly superior to Romney. No amount of anti-McCain diatribe on this site, which really is hot air, can change that.
Phil Byler on January 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
HaraldHardrada on January 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Is english your second langauge? Romney says no such thing dude! Conditional performance metrics determined by professional soldiers in concert with politicians that share a common goal are a long way from withdrawal.
dmann on January 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Darling, life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
All HA at this will glance
Even if they know not how to dance
Percy, Percy,
You have mercy
Google all of this will store
Forevermore
Entelechy on January 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Speak for yourself, please and learn to multi-task.
Buy Danish on January 26, 2008 at 7:47 PM
What absolute nonsense! People retire now, and in the past the aged worked less. Even during times of population decline. If there is a labor shortage, we’ll just have to make wages high enough to entice the elderly to work some, as they can do. And perhaps rather than have strong, young American men stack vegetables in the grocery stores, we can have them roof houses. I really can do without my moments of lust watching the muscular men stack the g**d**n vegetables. Let ninety year old women stack vegetables, if it must be done. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus would rather the vegetables be left in jumbled piles, and so would I.
thuja on January 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Is it true McCain is considering being Hillary’s V.P.?
DfDeportation on January 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Phil Byler on January 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Typical McCain logic: name drop and puff your resume’. McCain can hardly manage his emotions. He’s vindictive and he wears his feelings on his sleeves. He is acting like he’s owed this, and when he sees it slipping (just like his BFF’s the Clintons) he starts bending the “Straight Talk Express.”
Cold Steel on January 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM
You lie just like your buddy McCain
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/25/romney_makes_surprise_stop_in_baghdad/
lan astaslem on January 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM
The more I see this weasel, the more I’m reminded of the naked mole rat on Kim Possible.
Cold Steel on January 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »