Video: Obama distorts McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment again

posted at 5:25 pm on March 31, 2008 by Allahpundit

Shocking. Not that he’d distort it; that’s politics. What’s shocking is the fact that the reporter presses him on it and clarifies what McCain meant (which Obama already knows, natch), backing him into the very stupid assertion that Maverick wants a Germany/Japan-type occupation of Iraq that’s somehow going to cost us $150 billion a year for decades and decades and decades. “It’s seldom that you see such a dirty lie,” said Krauthammer of this subject not long ago. Prepare yourselves to see it again and again and again.

Exit question: He wants to know how Bush and McCain define victory. How does he define it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

This is why the word “nigger” will never go away! And it has little to do with his skin color.

bluestater

I think it is ironic that given Obama’s upbrining, that he probably rarely/never heard the word growing up. Thou he seems to insinuate it, I doubt his Grandmother ever said it.

Until moving to Chicago of course. Then he heard it in Church! What a fraud.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

And why have the Democrats been keeping a running total of loss of lives in Iraq, and not Afghanistan, so to say one is important and the other is not?

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed? Should we keep score, and would you like to see the score?

Also, how is it good for the democrats to be rooting for deaths of American soldiers, because the more deaths of American soldiers the better that their chances are..

More American Soldier deaths in Iraq = Democrats love it gives them power.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM

We’ll probably end up with a permanent base in Iran once they have their revolution. Persians don’t like the Arabs much, and have little against Israel. Don’t think Iraq is the best place for a permanent base.

Now a US base in Israel as tripwire would make more sense. Shut down Germany and S. Korea.

JiangxiDad on March 31, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Chakra Hammer

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam, in anyway, for any purpose is useless. Vietnam may as well have been on the moon. When it comes to not having a plan for victory, Kennedy/Johnson take the cake.

I get MB4′s position. He’s not a lefty retard. He just does not want to forget the cost. Unlike a liberal he constantly recalculates the situation. A liberal takes a view (terrorists are freedom fighters), and never sets a condition that if a jihadi makes his 1 year old swallow a grenade, then throws her into a crowd of pregnant women, it might change their opinion.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I cannot wait to see that debate in the general. McCain, for all his faults, will expose this guy for the phony he is.

AbaddonsReign on March 31, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed?

Chakra Hammer

You got that right. But as I have said, that is part of the story, an element of success, but not a reason to stay.

For me, the HONOR, of our troops is reason enough. That they can reasonably give the Iraqis a chance (a fighting chance) to “see” a positive future.

Should they fail to achieve it, is not on us. But we leave when they are reasonably on their way.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:36 PM

I cannot wait to see that debate in the general. McCain, for all his faults, will expose this guy for the phony he is.

AbaddonsReign

McCain is poised to say things that will make us cringe. He cant even get the Global Warming thing right – it’s Climate Change now!

Obama is a lawyer. If not for the favorable environment of the debates, he would be in real trouble. He’ll slip up, but might survive.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Now a US base in Israel as tripwire would make more sense. Shut down Germany and S. Korea.

JiangxiDad

Amen. But that would take a STRONG President unlike we have EVER seen. If you assume that new Presidents receive a briefing on Israel/Pali, they probably get a paralyzing understanding of the situation.

Still they send the money.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Global warming can NOT be denied.

You sound like Al Gore.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Uh, uh, uh, um, what no teleprompter?

It is striking how different and unsure of himself he sounds here in comparison to his speeches. He totally KNOWS that he is distorting McCain’s statement. Leaving a small strike force somewhere in the region? What the hell is that going to do for us? This guy would be the worst president ever!

WisCon on March 31, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Just off the top.

Vietnam and Iraq – both:

Lasts a long time.
Corrupt government officials.
Overly optimistic reports of progress.
Shallow support on part of populace for national leaders.
Visiting “dignitaries” seem to mostly see what they want to see.
Majority of Americans do not support.
Inflated view of how important to America.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.
Chakra Hammer

It seem that when you started quoting Vietnam losses you were making a comparison to Iraq. If NOT, then the losses do not address a “perspective”.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Just off the top.
Vietnam and Iraq – both:
Lasts a long time.
Corrupt government officials.
Overly optimistic reports of progress.
Shallow support on part of populace for national leaders.
Visiting “dignitaries” seem to mostly see what they want to see.
Majority of Americans do not support.
Inflated view of how important to America.
MB4

That sounds like California. Is Iraq like California?! Now I am worried.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed?

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Memories of doing that in Vietnam.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed?

Because our guys don’t kill terrorists – just innocent civilians, silly.

Midas on March 31, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Is Iraq like California?!

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:03 PM

No habla espanol in Iraq.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:21 PM

No habla espanol in Iraq.

MB4

Lets hope they don’t start speaking Arabic/Farsi/etc. in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, or California.

You know I thought Guiliani said he favored an “electric fence”. My bad.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:28 PM

Though I disagree with him, MB4 makes a level-headed case.

Now, if’n you’re in the mood to really lay into some actual batsh!t moonbattery, check out the comments on my “Today is Obama’s Surrender Day” post. The links it produced were magnets for quality paste-eating trolls.

Cuffy Meigs on March 31, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Get some perspective.

1966 = 6,143
1967 = 11,153
1968 = 16,592
1969 = 11,616
1970 = 6,081

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM

So what are you saying?

That because it is “just” 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq, so far, and it was a lot more in Vietnam that the 4,000 are not enough to get all concerned about?

I remember back during Vietnam some saying that , “Well it’s no where near the number killed in WWII”.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Though I disagree with him, MB4 makes a level-headed case.
Cuffy Meigs

MB4′s position has a particular theme. He is not a liberal apologist. He recognizes the evil of the enemy. He is suspicious that the “power” of Islam is not addressed in our strategy, and that it will eventually turn whatever we accomplish to ash.

My position is we do the best we can, and THEN drop them in the water. Sink or swim, it will be on the Iraqis. When we have done “enough” is what the debate is about.

Obama (unlike MB4) is a politician who has not thought about, and certainly does not mean a word that comes out of his mouth. He ignores every factor that informs MB4′s opinion.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Obama, “uhh ah uh yea you know.. ”

“Artikulate.” LMAO >:D

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Clean, too! (Just ask Greasy Joe Biden)
/snark

B’deh, b’deh, b’deh, b’deh
Withdraw the troops, f-f-f-f-f-olks!
/porky pig

Insomniac on March 31, 2008 at 10:01 PM

This dolt is the epitome of a dumb ass. He has no idea what he is taking about and begins to stutter and obfuscate when pressured. If he truly doesn’t know what John McCain meant in his speech then he is even dumber than I initially thought he was. There is however one thing that is very clear . . . this poor Republic is in very serious trouble. The thought that this guy might be elected makes me cringe and shiver.

rplat on March 31, 2008 at 10:03 PM

I remember back during Vietnam some saying that , “Well it’s no where near the number killed in WWII”.

MB4

Something you said set him off on that rant. Seems like a comparison to me. These references are useless. As you point out, Islam was not a factor in Vietnam.

Still millions were killed. So does our effort in Iraq prevent such carnage? For how long?

Interestingly what few muslims there were in Vietnam left when we did. They’re back.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:57 PM

The fates are with you, Watson

Holmes on March 31, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Obama’s liberal positions on military spending are much more dangerous than his liberal social positions- bad as some may think they are. His plans to gut defense spending during a time of war will not lead to peace; it will lead to defeat.

His plan to save money by eliminating research on missile defense systems “that do not work” is begging the question of whether further research will make them workable. Missile defense is not agressive nor does it make agressive war safe because no defense system is perfect. What it does is save perhaps millions of innocent lives and reduce the chance of being successfully blackmailed or taken out by a preemptive strike.

When you compare the cost of missile defense against the cost of property destruction, economic ruin and the value of lives lost by even a limited nuclear strike by a minor nuclear power, the cost to benefit should be fantastically positve unless the system does not work even moderately well. So far, progress on the various components of a layered missile defense seem to be suggesting that a relatively effective missile defense system is not only possible but may not be that far away.

Obama’s spending plans are also more dangerous than his liberal social agenda. He wants to create very expensive programs on education, health care etc. at the same time he does nothing to address the financial crisis facing current government spending programs like medicare and social security. Runaway spending eventually leads to runaway taxes or runaway deficits and stagflation that will blight our economic future.

KW64 on March 31, 2008 at 9:07 PM

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 10:06 PM

He takes questions at a PA gas station. Say no more.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 31, 2008 at 10:09 PM

His plan to save money by eliminating research on missile defense systems “that do not work” is begging the question of whether further research will make them workable.

funky chicken

You got that right. Idiocy! The ATOMIC BOMB didn’t work – until it did. Japan, So Korea, and Israel will continue research anyway. Nice to have “friends”.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Leaving a small strike force somewhere in the region? What the hell is that going to do for us?

WisCon: let him have his big leadership moment when the jihadists overrun our small force so he gets to play national healer?

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 10:15 PM

I won’t even quote but the comments section here has really turned toward the sewer.

12thman on March 31, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Obama has ZERO credibility with the military. McCain didn’t say we should stay in Iraq 100 years, he said we could and it wouldn’t be a first… troops in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Italy…..

When it comes to the cost of the war and if the U.S. can afford it, we’re the richest country on the face of the earth. The war in Iraq costs less than 1% of the Gross Domestic Product annually. Here are some facts about the cost of the Iraq war:

MONETARY COST OF THE WAR/GDP

*The liberation of Kuwait in 1991 cost the equivalent of 1% of the GDP of the time, or about $80 billion in today’s dollars.

*The Vietnam war cost between 1.5% and 2% of GDP each year during the eight years of major American commitment, or about $600 billion. At its peak we had more than 500,000 soldiers and other military in Vietnam.

*Iraq war costs of between 0.5% and 0.7% of GDP.

HUMAN COST OF THE WAR

*Iraq war: nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed

*In the past century American military fatalities during wartime totaled about 620,000, or an average of 6,200 per year in a nation with an average population of about 165 million. In the century before that, American fatalities averaged about 3,800 per year in a country with a population that averaged only about 30 million.

THE COST OF NOT GOING TO WAR

TROOP LEVELS
*In late 2002 the U.S. had more than 60,000 troops stationed in the countries around Iraq to back up UN Security Council resolutions. Hans Blix, the UN’s weapons inspector, credited those forces as being the reason he was getting even limited co-operation from Saddam. In the congressional debate about authorizing the war, the opponents’ position was that we should continue with the UN inspection process, which required U.S. troops to stay on the scene. It was presumed that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), not just by President Bush, but by the National Intelligence Estimate and the spy agencies of many other countries. It would have taken a long time to convince a skeptical world that Saddam’s noncompliance with 17 UN resolutions was innocent. Under the alternative scenario of the time American forces would have been stationed around Iraq for years, many of them in harm’s way.

*We would have still stationed half to three-fourths as many troops as we now have in Iraq in neighboring countries. The cost of stationing them there would be lower than what we now pay but would still be substantial.

*The continuous use of air power would have been necessary to police the no-fly zones established in the ceasefire of the first Iraq war.

*Increased surveillance of the Iran-Iraq and Syria-Iraq borders would have been necessary to limit terrorist migration.

*Evidence suggests Saddam would have rebuilt his WMD capability. it isplausible that not invading Iraq would probably have cost at least a third as much as we ultimately spent on deposing Saddam.

COST IN BENEFITS

*While no WMDs were found in Iraq, the U.S. demonstrated its willingness to go to war over them.

*Shortly after Saddam fell, Libya’s ruler Muammar Qadaffi decided to reveal that he had a stockpile of WMDs-along with a nuclear weapons program-and that he would like to give them up voluntarily and abide by the norms of international law. The timing of his conversion made it clear that he had learned some lessons from Saddam’s defeat.

*Iran probably suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, around the same time as the Libya move.

*In Iraq the war toppled an outlaw regime that not only had been flouting international law but had been a systematic abuser of human rights. It’s fair to claim that America cannot afford to liberate all the people who live under oppressive regimes, but the causes of human freedom and dignity have certainly gained by his downfall.

*Assurance Saddam or his sons would never rebuild an WMD arsenal.

THE COST OF STAYING OR GOING

A number of significant countries in the region depend on the perception that America would block any threat to their peace and security. A precipitate American withdrawal suggesting a lack of American commitment to the region or, worse, the perception that America had been defeated, could lead to a major regional realignment. Most countries in the gulf would have to reconsider their security situation and choose either between rearmament (including the acquisition of nuclear weapons) or cooperation with Iran, which would be happy to fill the vacuum left by an American defeat or withdrawal. This would ultimately cost us in ways far beyond the ability of dollars to measure.

On the other hand, an American success in Iraq could also change the course of history in the Middle East, where the U.S. has made huge investments in security over many decades. A stable Iraqi government selected by its own people would be a first in the Arab world. It would suggest that there is a third alternative to the current choice between repressive regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. It may have been naive to think it would happen in one or two years, and the administration can probably be faulted for not changing its occupation strategy sooner, but the initial success of the U.S. surge in troop levels shows that the decision is not yet out of our hands.

Whether we win or lose will come down to our perseverance and our willingness to learn and adapt as a result of our mistakes. It was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who cited the so-called Pottery Barn rule in warning President Bush about America’s commitment after the invasion: “You break it, you own it.” Well, we own it. Whether or not we like the decision to have invaded in March 2003 is immaterial now. This is difficult for an economist who deals with figures all the time to admit, but when it comes to war, the dollar cost is hardly a major concern. I am not a military expert. It’s the military’s judgment that should determine whether to double our investment or take our losses and go home. If our military leaders think we can ultimately prevail, we should stay. If we ultimately cannot, we should leave. It’s as simple as that.

This has been the case in all our wars. World War II ultimately cost about 140% of GDP. Would FDR have thought, “Well, the war is worth it at 130% of GDP, but not at 170%”? In terms of the damage it did to the American economy and the American heartland, or simply in terms of the number of dead, the Civil War dwarfed all the others. But Lincoln certainly never took a pencil to do a cost-benefit test. Nor did John F. Kennedy when he said, “We will pay any price, bear any burden … to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Had any of these leaders done that, they would have fallen into the trap that the economics profession is so often accused of: They would know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Obama’s insistance that this is a U.S. occupation shows he’s not fit to be commander in chief. We’re a guest in a host country offering security and monetary help. We’re under a U.N. mandate at the request of Iraq to be there. The mandates run for a year at a time and are renewed only at Iraq’s written request to the U.N.

Amy Proctor on March 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM

I won’t even quote but the comments section here has really turned toward the sewer.

12thman on March 31, 2008 at 10:16 PM

I know the one you’re talking about, but I have to disagree. This particular set of comments, save the obvious one, have really been thought provoking and interesting.

Thanks Agrippa2k and MB4. Food for thought indeed.

techno_barbarian on March 31, 2008 at 10:28 PM

We need to stop making comparisons to other situations. Either you are trying to convince someone else or yourself.

Some things are facts not in dispute. Iraq has been TOO EXPENSIVE on every level. That is not a complaint or criticism. Other options would/could have be more expensive. Bad choices.

President Bush has defined the word Strategery. Pursuing certain goals, and achieving harder ones in the process. Brilliant (by mistake?).

What matters now more than anything is managing one thought in the minds of our people, friends, allies, and enemies. That thought – “They will never do that again”.

Victory may be a slimmer goal than people want to admit. But if we can honorably claim it, we establish that a similar action could be taken in support of other nations. The Sudan, or even (gasp) Israel. That is what our friends and enemies fear.

Their hope is that we fail, and/or elect weak leadership that would never put this on the table.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 10:52 PM

If he does win the primary, I will look forward to his debates with McCain. Without his teleprompter, he’s almost unintelligable.

4shoes on March 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 10:15 PM

For all we know he wants them there to protect against Israeli aggression.

WisCon on March 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM

WisCon that was the opinion of Ms. Power, who Obama sought out (I believe “headhunted” was used in the article I read–RACISTS) to become his top foreign policy advisor. Or at least she championed that view in a speech she gave back in 2002/2003. Crazy.

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Yes, he’s misquoting McCain. A fair thing would be to say that McCain is delusional and seriously argues by implication that Iraq can be Germany in the observable future, at which point the main concern for the US forces will be to find a way back home to the base having drunk too much of Iraqi beer.

Yes, I am antiwar. I still support McCain over Obama for a whole list of reasons. However, McCain has no clear and defensible position on Iraq. His “answer” to questions about criteria for troop withdrawal is that troop withdrawal isn’t really a concern in Iraq seeing as how it isn’t a concern in Germany. Equating Iraq to Germany is simply insane.

Obama absolutely correctly argues that staying in Iraq will always be at a huge cost. Whether or not it’s a cost we as a country should pay is a legitimate thing to argue about. McCain is being dishonest by remaining unwilling to acknowledge the costs. He has no business crying foul.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM

So what are you saying?

That because it is “just” 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq, so far, and it was a lot more in Vietnam that the 4,000 are not enough to get all concerned about?

I remember back during Vietnam some saying that , “Well it’s no where near the number killed in WWII”.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Because thats 4,000 in 5 years… and the violence is nowhere near what it was.. and Iraq is now a sovereign Country, with an Elected government we are there at the request of the Iraqi Government.

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM

we are there at the request of the Iraqi Government.

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Well a majority of Americans request that we bring the American troops home to America.

Like maybe sometime before Press One for English, Press Two for Spanish becomes Press One for Spanish, Press Two for Espanol.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:27 AM

Equating Iraq to Germany is simply insane.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM

If some Army unit that now has alert orders to go back to Iraq again were to hear that their orders had been changed to go to Germany instead, well let’s just say I think that they would agree with you.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM

Iraq war costs of between 0.5% and 0.7% of GDP.

Iraq war: nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed

You make the war sound like such a real bargain. Maybe we should have a bunch more? Such a deal, how can we not want a few more at such a great price?

It was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who cited the so-called Pottery Barn rule in warning President Bush about America’s commitment after the invasion: “You break it, you own it.” Well, we own it.

Amy Proctor on March 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM

We don’t own it despite what the Perfumed Prince says, and it was broke before we got there in any case. We liberated them from Saddam, so they owe us. Besides President Bush has said that Iraq is an independent country, not one we own.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:55 AM

Well a majority of Americans request that we bring the American troops home to America.

Like maybe sometime before Press One for English, Press Two for Spanish becomes Press One for Spanish, Press Two for Espanol.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:27 AM

So the majority of Americans want genocide, in Iraq?

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 2:05 AM

So the majority of Americans want genocide, in Iraq?

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 2:05 AM

Where did you come up with that canard? I know it’s late, unless you are on the west coast, but not that late.

In any case, why do you think that Iraq would have a genocide?

And don’t say that AQI would do it as they are estimated to be between several hundred and a thousand or two, not nearly enough to do a genocide. And that was as of a few months ago, reports are that many/most have been wiped out. If the IA can’t take care of them, then they are beyond hope.

Sunnis genocide Shiites?

Shiites genocide Sunnis?

Shiites genocide Shiites?

Even I don’t think that they hate each other that much.

If you do think that they hate each other that much, then how on earth, at the same time, can you think that they can form anything like that democratic, rule-of-law, respect for human rights, example to the rest of the middle east nation that Bush and McCain yammer about?

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:33 AM

BTW, Cognitive dissonance:
Psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:37 AM

Yes he distorts it if he doesn’t tell the whole truth. There needs to be a huge tally board to show how many times he distorts the 100 year story, like the ones on the freeway that show the lottery total.

oakpack on April 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM

I remember back during Vietnam some saying that , “Well it’s no where near the number killed in WWII”.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Put it in perspective…

The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and ’82 — a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and ’06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CRS Report

In 2005,2006 3,800 reported deaths of military personal. 2,205 were hostile, terrorist, self inflicted (which could have happened off of the battlefield) or pending.
Instead of the 4,000 died in combat, the figure is 2,200, or half of what is reported.
BTW, 1980-1987 there were more deaths in the military every year then either of the past two years…what military action were we taking then??

right2bright on April 1, 2008 at 8:21 AM

This idiot Obama is just a garden variety, corrupt and incompetent Democrat politician.

Absolutely worthless. Get to polls this fall, if for nothing else than to vote against THIS.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 8:28 AM

This guy is ONE BIG EMPTY SUIT!!!

Golfer_75093 on April 1, 2008 at 8:56 AM

The initial responses to the exit question is exactly why Obama is right. Could HA poster please tell us (the ones want us to leave Iraq) exactly how many years you would be willing to stay over there assuming the situation stays the same? Will you stay there until we achieve ‘victory’?

McCain’s position seems to be to stay there no matter what. This could last 1 year or 100 years, who knows. Taken as a whole, I don’t think Obama is distorting McCain’s approach to how long to stay in Iraq.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

The missile defense system doesn’t work? Didn’t it successfully shoot down an out-of-control satellite, which was harder to hit than a ballistic missile, just last month, so that it landed harmlessly in the Pacific?

So if North Korea shot a nuke at Seattle or Los Angeles, it could be taken out by the missile defense system. For the people living there, that idea is downright–hopeful!

I must be too old-fashioned, I just don’t get it! Why bother with facts? We’ve gotta have HOPE and CHANGE!

Steve Z on April 1, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Oh how I love revisionist history. The American troops did not lose in Viet Nam. MSM lost the war, with the likes of Cronkite on air every night beating up on the troops and officers running the war. Weak pols than followed like lemmings. This is exactly what MSM is trying right now. And the weak pols are following like good little lemmings. Look at today, the progress is there, in MSM no stories. When things are in the crapper, front page. One of the best results of WW II, troops in Asia and Europe for defense. This would also be a side benefit of victory in Iraq. Troops placed in the Mid-east for long term protection in the area.

pueblo1032 on April 1, 2008 at 9:48 AM

If some Army unit that now has alert orders to go back to Iraq again were to hear that their orders had been changed to go to Germany instead, well let’s just say I think that they would agree with you.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM

Yes, they would now. Then again, at one point the same could have been said of Germany.

The problem with the Vietnam analogy is that people have been making it since 2003. When you repeat a lie enough…

Of course most Americans are against it. They’ve seen very little positive coming out of it and carnage on the news on a regular basis. And the protesters, looking for something to make them feel a part of something important, have latched onto Iraq as some do religion.

But the principle difference is in who is fighting this war. Everyone over there signed up and joined willingly. These aren’t boys who need to be saved from a greedy government who preys on the young. Protesters aren’t burning draft notices. They’re impeding on others’ freedom to enlist.

And that I think makes the difference in the casualty numbers. It’s not that the 4,000 lost in this war mean less than the ones lost in Vietnam but that people who are drafted into a war are not much different than civilians.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM

The initial responses to the exit question is exactly why Obama is right. Could HA poster please tell us (the ones want us to leave Iraq) exactly how many years you would be willing to stay over there assuming the situation stays the same? Will you stay there until we achieve ‘victory’?

McCain’s position seems to be to stay there no matter what. This could last 1 year or 100 years, who knows. Taken as a whole, I don’t think Obama is distorting McCain’s approach to how long to stay in Iraq.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Do you remember after 9/11 when President Bush told us the fight against Islamfacism was going to be a long war? That it was going to take military, diplomatic, and political will? Part of that war is having a military presence in Iraq. No one knows how long it will take. I suspect it will go on thru both our lifetimes and beyond. You need to be a bit more realistic about what we are facing.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Do you remember after 9/11 when President Bush told us the fight against Islamfacism was going to be a long war? That it was going to take military, diplomatic, and political will? Part of that war is having a military presence in Iraq. No one knows how long it will take. I suspect it will go on thru both our lifetimes and beyond. You need to be a bit more realistic about what we are facing.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM

That’s my point. HA is accusing Obama of distorting what McCain said, but at the end of the day, it seems to me McCain and his supporter would stay there for our lifetimes and beyond. Hence the 100 years.

And no, I don’t recall Bush ever talking about Islamofacism.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM

I just found out today that my nephew is scheduled to go back to Iraq for his second tour sometime this summer.

None of those yahoos in Washington have any intentions on pulling out our troops to “end this war.” They know that to do so, would cause chaos in the middle east and then THAT political burden would be on their shoulders.

Obama and the likes are all rhetoric and no action. Mark my words.

pullingmyhairout on April 1, 2008 at 10:36 AM

HA is accusing Obama of distorting what McCain said, but at the end of the day, it seems to me McCain and his supporter would stay there for our lifetimes and beyond. Hence the 100 years.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM

But how is that any different than what we’ve done in Germany, Japan and any other country we’re not fighting but have bases in? And how is it any different from what Obama himself has said?

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 10:44 AM

I think Obama is more flexible in his definition of victory. That’s how it is different. I am not sure how we defined victory in Germany or Japan, but right now the right wing is setting the goal post so high, imho, that we will be forced to stay and that our presence will prevent the Iraqis from finding their own solution. As far as I understand, the presence Obama wants to have in Iraq is very light.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I think Obama is more flexible in his definition of victory.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I don’t recall ever having heard Obama’s definition of victory.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM

That’s my point. HA is accusing Obama of distorting what McCain said, but at the end of the day, it seems to me McCain and his supporter would stay there for our lifetimes and beyond. Hence the 100 years.

And no, I don’t recall Bush ever talking about Islamofacism.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Obama is distorting it because he is not differentiating between being a military presence as opposed to being the major participant in the fighting. Bush didn’t use the actual term, Islamfacism, but if you want to play that nitpicky game, do you also disagree Islam is driving the terrorism? Our presence in Iraq is a good thing, it has required sacrifice and will require more. I’m not convinced democracy, at least as we know it, is the answer, but I am convinced our military will be fighting against Islamic driven terror for decades. We need to consolidate our gains, not throw them away.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I’d like to see a McCain ad where McCain says “this is what I said” then shows the video – then says “this is how Obama interpreted it”, then show another video. Then McCain says Obama is too stupid to be president of the USA. How can he meet with foreign leaders and be trusted to understand what they are saying?

pappy on March 31, 2008 at 7:06 PM

He did:

“We fought a war with Japan and Germany. Afterwards we maintained a military presence there, which we are doing today. We fought a war in Korea, we maintained a military presence in Korea, which we are doing to this day. The first Gulf War, we threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and we have a military presence there to this day,” McCain told reporters aboard his campaign plane.

“So he doesn’t either, hasn’t read or understand … the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace. That’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. … So in all due respect, it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/01/mccain-obama-spar-over-spending-100-years-in-iraq/

It is so EASY to make Obama look like a moron!

ArmyAunt on April 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM

If he does win the primary, I will look forward to his debates with McCain. Without his teleprompter, he’s almost unintelligable.

4shoes on March 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Has any of the Superdelegates heard him talk in pressers?
The guy makes no sense and you can actually see the wheels turning in his head when he is making something up.
How the libtards get teary eyed over his speaking ability is beyond me.
He is painful to watch, appears uneducated and completely uninformed.

ArmyAunt on April 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Diplomatic….. forces?

Does that count as a Bushism, I mean, Obamism?

Seixon on April 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Ah well crap, Rice said the same thing in 2006:

It is clear today that America must begin to reposition our diplomatic forces around the world, so over the next few years the United States will begin to shift several hundred of our diplomatic positions to new critical posts for the 21st century.

Is it just me, or is the idea of “diplomatic forces” a bit odd? I mean, it’s not referring to forces as in pressure, but forces as in personnel. The militarization of the US language, vote for Obama! ;)

Seixon on April 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM

The debates will be better than a pay-per-view smackdown fight with McCain wiping the floor with this clown. What an idiot speaker he is on the stump without a written speech. And they make fun of Bush? Are you kidding?

Winebabe on April 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Now a US base in Israel as tripwire would make more sense. Shut down Germany and S. Korea.

JiangxiDad on March 31, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I am not a big fan of the empire or our welfare checks to Israel but I do not think painting a bigger target on them, that a US base would create, would help their security. In fact I see it as an exploitation of Israel to get involved in future wars at their expense. Israel has the finest military in the Middle East, but they don’t need to be forced into using it more than they have to and a US base would do that.

LevStrauss on April 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

I think another thing worth noting is that Allah and others want to hold Obama to a standard they would never subscribe to themselves. Neither should they by the way.

The right repeatedly (and correctly) says that the left “loves taxes”. Which Obama’s program did this come from? Well, he never said that. However, it’s a direct consequence of his proposals. His expanded government programs mean that a tax raise will be in order. He claims not. We have our own brain and disagree.

Blaming Obama for his unwillingness to go along with McCain’s mantra no matter how incoherent he thinks it is, is just childish.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM

people who are drafted into a war are not much different than civilians.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I just fell over.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Is Allah’s next post going to explain how John Kerry’s protest vote on war funding was misrepresented and taken out of context, or are we going to cut the crap and quit pretending that we don’t know how politics is played with an increasing dumbed down public that learn from soundbites?

LevStrauss on April 1, 2008 at 12:59 PM

I don’t recall ever having heard Obama’s definition of victory.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Exactly. Instead of setting the bar to ‘no date certain’ or we have to finish the job, Obama’s websites states that:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

The implication is that success is already achieved (aka mission accomplished), and the rest will be mostly balls dropped in other people’s court.

Obama is distorting it because he is not differentiating between being a military presence as opposed to being the major participant in the fighting. Bush didn’t use the actual term, Islamfacism, but if you want to play that nitpicky game, do you also disagree Islam is driving the terrorism? Our presence in Iraq is a good thing, it has required sacrifice and will require more. I’m not convinced democracy, at least as we know it, is the answer, but I am convinced our military will be fighting against Islamic driven terror for decades. We need to consolidate our gains, not throw them away.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Again, I believe you are not directly addressing the global point. Imagine nothing gets better or worse in Iraq. Would McCain leave in 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, 100 years. Is there a maximum number of years for spending at the current pace?

His public statements lead me to conclude he would stay there for a while, a long while. If you take the 100 years statement plus everything else McCain said, I don’t see how what Obama said is a distortion. I think it would be a fair conclusion to reach from all that McCain has said.

And yes, I disagree that Islam is driving the terrorism. I think Islam is a great tool to be used by terrorists, but I don’t think Islam is in the driver seat, I think it’s the other way around.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Only because the leftists defeated us in the war there, yet.

thuja on April 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I think Islam is a great tool to be used by terrorists, but I don’t think Islam is in the driver seat, I think it’s the other way around.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

They have become so intertwined, as if at a molecular level, that it be hard to separate them.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

bluestater on March 31, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Take your racist bile somewhere else, jerk.

How does crap like this stay posted for over 12 hours with only one person objecting? What is this, Stormfront?

Kensington on April 1, 2008 at 2:12 PM

They have become so intertwined, as if at a molecular level, that it be hard to separate them.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

If that were true, considering the amount of Muslims on earth, you would see WAY WAY more terrorists attacks.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Again, I believe you are not directly addressing the global point. Imagine nothing gets better or worse in Iraq. Would McCain leave in 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, 100 years. Is there a maximum number of years for spending at the current pace?

His public statements lead me to conclude he would stay there for a while, a long while. If you take the 100 years statement plus everything else McCain said, I don’t see how what Obama said is a distortion. I think it would be a fair conclusion to reach from all that McCain has said.

And yes, I disagree that Islam is driving the terrorism. I think Islam is a great tool to be used by terrorists, but I don’t think Islam is in the driver seat, I think it’s the other way around.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

First of all, a military presence as opposed to the major fighting force means spending won’t be done at the same level. Second, knowing our government, any reduction in cost won’t be saved,..it will be diverted, probably into social programs or even something like Obama’s bill for contributing a trillion dollars to the U.N. over the next 15 years to “fight poverty.” So, you aren’t going to save money by bringing troops home. Tax money will be spent. Is leaving them there advantageous to our antiterrorism effort? Who knows? Seems reasonable to have a footprint there. I doubt neither you or I have the expertise to make that final judgment. As regards the Islamists driving terrorism or vice versa, have you missed the infiltration into our civil structures and the obvious efforts to substitute Sharia into Western legal/social systems? Terrorism isn’t all about guns and bombs.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM

“He wants to know how Bush and McCain define victory.”

Well yes, I’m certain he does, for then he would have a clue.

What I want to know is what method do the Democrats think John McCain is using to not only live another hundred years, but remain President for the entire time.

Sasnak on April 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Is Allah’s next post going to explain how John Kerry’s protest vote on war funding was misrepresented and taken out of context

Only if he’s intellectually honest.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM

What I want to know is what method do the Democrats think John McCain is using to not only live another hundred years, but remain President for the entire time.

I think it’s fairly well established that you can be brain dead and be elected President. Twice.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Oh, that’s right, I forgot about Bubba.

Sasnak on April 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM

It has become all to clear that Obama will not be held to account for anything he says/does/is by both the press and the public! He has already cleared the Rev. Wright turbulence and in fact gained support. The Messiah will be able to lie, twist and distort facts without fear of repercussions. Just as some on this site that harbor absolutely clueless perspectives on Islam and terrorism and cannot stay focused on a topic, instead they continually hijacking comments to push their pathetic agendas! Its all about hearing ones inner voice and feeling your opinion is correct regardless of undeniable facts and irrefutable truths! Well good F’in luck to one and all and may God help us survive the next decade!

dmann on April 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM

The big L liberals must always tear down America and boost up its enemies until there is no difference between us.

Then there would be no war, no borders, no rich or poor, no good or bad. In other words UTOPIA !!!

They don’t hate America, they just love UTOPIA more …

jcarl4283 on April 1, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Second, knowing our government, any reduction in cost won’t be saved,..it will be diverted, probably into social programs or even something like Obama’s bill for contributing a trillion dollars to the U.N.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM

You know what, it seems you don’t mind spending all those dollars in Iraq, but I would rather spend those dollars on social programs to help fellow americans. I don’t mind helping out others, but between something I perceive to be wasteful spending in Iraq and domestic social programs, I will pick the latter.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2