The Democrats have an Iraq problem. The war has, for some time, been broadly unpopular, and the Democrats have tended to just assume that this should translate into Democratic votes, as the Democrats have been publicly identified as the anti-war……

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! ;)

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

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.

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!

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.

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.