Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditBarack Obama is in the midst of one of the more successful global tours by an American political leader in recent history.
Foreign leaders are rearranging their schedules to meet with the man they think will be the next leader of the United States -- and signaling that they can and will work with the Democrat who would be president. U.S. troops are cheering Obama the candidate as they would a commander-in-chief. Reporters from around the world are suggesting that Obama is undoing the damage of the Bush-Cheney years and turning global opinion toward a more favorable view of the United States.
So what is the response of the campaign of Republican John McCain?
A patriotic sigh of relief for the republic? No.
A grudging recognition that their candidate's differences with Obama will involve questions of policy rather than competence? No.
The McCain camp is warning that Obama is "frighteningly inexperienced" and "the antithesis of what we should expect from the president of the United States."
New Mexico Congresswoman Heather Wilson, who just lost a Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, is angling for a job in a McCain administration.
As such, she has made herself a top surrogate for the candidate.
And, on Tuesday, she was sent out to kneecap Obama.
Attacking the Illinois senator for suggesting the Iraqi government had embraced a loose timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops, Wilson claimed with regard to Obama: "He's not listening to the whole of what the Iraqi government was saying -- he's hearing what he wanted to hear and what he thought would help him politically, which get backs to Senator Obama as a candidate for the presidency. He has his finger in the wind, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and he is not leading.
The the congresswoman told reporters in a national conference call: "He is in no way sophisticated enough, I don't think --- I mean he is frighteningly inexperienced when it comes to international affairs and national security policy. And he heard what he wanted to hear from the Iraqi government, without any context around it, and took that simple message and decided it helped him politically. That's the antithesis of what we should expect from a president of the United States."
The problem with Wilson's critique, which pretty much parrots the official line of the McCain campaign at this point, is that it is not Obama who is hearing what he wants to hear.
It's McCain and his supporters.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted Germany's Der Spiegel as suggesting, not once but repeatedly, that Obama's approach was a wiser one.
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," explained the prime minister.
Comparing Obama's timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in relatively short order with McCain's 100-years approach, Maliki said, "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."
But the prime minister did not stop there.
Describing his frustration with the U.S. debate as framed by McCain and his supporters, Maliki added, "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
This is what the prime minister said, as translated in a form approved by his office.
Barack Obama is hearing things right.
Heather Wilson -- and the McCain campaign for which she spinning -- is peddling fantasy and falsehoods.
Maybe Wilson and her candidate are intentionally lying to the American people.
Maybe they are just delusional.
Either way, it is this spin that is "the antithesis of what we should expect from a president of the United States" -- and those who would say anything in order to get a job in his administration.
Convention News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
What McCain's campaign meant was that President Obama, on this, his first little foreign jaunt as POTUS, is "Frighteningly Inexperienced"......It's a compliment...or maybe satire...we'll let TN's readers decide.....LOL!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 5:37pm
Heather Wilson chose her words carefully and apparently, they made an impact. Just think about it. Here is an inexperienced first term Senator with zero foreign policy experience, asking America to trust that he will know how to handle foreign affairs, the war on terrorism and the myriad threats that face us. All this with NO experience. So what does B.O do? He embarks on a foreign tour to make it appear that he will now have the experience to be President. All this and just three months to go.
Heather Wilson was dead on.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 5:53pm
I also liked what John McCain said in response to B.O.s plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq before the job was done. He said (paraphrasing) that troops come home when wars are won. When they leave before the war is won, that means the other guys won. Straight-talk.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 5:56pm
"OMG" world leaders are paying attention to Obama!?!?!___ See how frightened new con repubs just aren't experienced with what to do about a real leader-- they've had corporate ruled petty dic'tators on the brain for so long.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 6:00pm
"And, on Tuesday, she was sent out to kneecap Obama."
Well, considering McCave's diarrheatic mess-ups, it was between having to do that or stay in and change McCave's diaper-- er, you decide what was a cleaner chore.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 6:10pm
Hey, for most dems it's a neat deal electing Obama.
For repub new cons-- it's the end of their world. It's pigs with little wings flying in the sky time for them...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 6:18pm
" ... New Mexico Congresswoman Heather Wilson, who just lost a Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, is angling for a job in a McCain administration. As such, she has made herself a top surrogate for the candidate. And, on Tuesday, she was sent out to kneecap Obama ..."
Ah, the policies of "mad men".
Posted by Zero at 07/22/2008 @ 6:19pm
No wonder the new con repubs are flinging so much shit at Obama-- he's the cause they're shitting so much...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 6:19pm
Oh ok, dinner time.. I'll stop.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 6:23pm
Im sorry, it isnt Obama who is 'Frighteningly Inexperienced'... It was the sad excuse for a POTUS that sits his final months in the oval office (hopefully he can do no more harm to our country before he is sent packing back to the ranch) This will be the Mccain strategy..?? More fearmongering ..?? First come out and say Obama dosent know anything and say he hasnt toured the region... Then blast him for doing it so successfully..??
The only thing Americans should fear is four more years of ignorance, arrogance, lies and corruption... But of course the right wing, scared sheep who continue to post here with gleeful ignorance will never pull thier heads out thier asses...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:31pm
Of course Obama is frighteningly inexperienced. He has ZERO experience.
He has never held a position of authority, never been responsible for a payroll, or a management decision, never had to hire or fire.
Obama is unproved, untested. American voters have nothing in his background to assure us that he will make good judgments under stress.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:48pm
"I mean he is frighteningly inexperienced when it comes to international affairs"
Doesn't seem to bother those in the international community with whom he will be conducting those affairs.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:49pm
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:31pm
Just a point. Although Dubya will probably go down in history as one of our worst Presidents, he did (although jaded), serve his country. Obama did not. Dubya also had executive experience (six year Gov. of Texas)and his brother was Governor of Florida. Obama has no executive experience.
Dubya's father was a WWII hero, a Congressman, a U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Chairman of the RNC, liason to China, Director of the CIA, Vice president and President. Even the Bush's most ardent haters would have to assume that some of the father's experience was imparted to the son. Obama's father hightailed it when he was just a boy and had no experience anyway.
So as little experience that you and others think Dubya had, Obama can't even meet that.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:50pm
Obama is unproved, untested. American voters have nothing in his background to assure us that he will make good judgments under stress.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:48pm
As opposed to McCain, who has years of experience making bad judgements.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:48pm
Plus he wants to run away from Iraq now that victory is at hand. Do you know he still won't acknowledge that the surge was a success. Just about everyone on both sides of the aisle thinks so except Obama and maybe Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:53pm
Over four thousand dead American troops' families want to see the war won. We are nearly there.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:54pm
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:52pm
The key word there is 'experience'.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:55pm
Even the Bush's most ardent haters would have to assume that some of the father's experience was imparted to the son.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:50pm
It sure doesn't appear to have...one would almost think Dubya was adopted.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:55pm
Even the Bush's most ardent haters would have to assume that some of the father's experience was imparted to the son.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:50pm
It sure doesn't appear to have...one would almost think Dubya was adopted.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:56pm
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 6:55pm
That's funny but he looks too much like a Bush to have been adopted.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:00pm
The key word there is 'experience'.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:55pm
Right. Dubya had "experience"...bankrupted two companies. I'd take someone with no experience over someone who was a proven failure.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 7:00pm
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 7:00pm
Thought you were referring to McCain. Sorry.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:01pm
BOUNCE - Obama, McCave downward spiral:
Gallup Poll daily tracking. Three-day rolling average. N=approx. 2,600 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2. June 7, 2008, & earlier: Based on a five-day rolling average. N=approx. 4,400 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
General Election Trial Heat:
Date____McCain_Obama_Other_Neither_Unsure
7/20/08___41____47____1_____6_____6
7/19/08___42____45____1_____6_____5
7/18/08___43____45____1_____5_____5
7/17/08___44____45____1_____4_____6
Why one could even say that Obama has McCave in a "rope-a-dope"...
LETS GET READY TO RRRRUMMMBLE:
Are McCaves knees still good, does he have anything left, his right was always weak, his endurance is all he's got, but is that enough, he's getting pummeled against the ropes, he's incoherent, but his corner doesn't believe in the white towel, they have no white towel, somebody please oh please give them a white towel-- OH, THE HUMANITY...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:03pm
My point is that experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. I would go so far to say that being President is so different from any other job that EVERYONE has to go through a period of OJT.
For me, it all comes down to this: Do you want more of the same entrenched monied power-for-hire-to-the-highest-bidder, or do you want at least some sort of a chance at something different?
Almost all of America is heartily SICK of the status quo and desperately want a change. McCain offers absolutely no chance of upsetting the status quo - hell, he IS the status quo. Obama at least offers some sort of an outside chance for change. Some will argue how big that chance is, but it IS a chance.
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 7:10pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/22/2008 @ 7:09pm
Most of the troops will come home sooner rather than later whether Obama is elected or not. There will, however, be a residual force of perhaps thirty thousand troops remaining there for the forseeable future. Afghanistan will become the new front soon as Al Qaeda is gathering there. Everyone should be very proud of our forces for the courage they showed in iraq and should welcome them home as heroes when the job is complete. I hope that the extreme left will be on board.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:17pm
Plus he wants to run away from Iraq now that victory is at hand.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:53pm
Yeah yeah, and we should still be in Vietnam...
There was and is no surge:
Sunday, September 14, 2003 (320 US troops dead)
MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
There's no 'surge', just a lot of fucked-up stay as long as possible dragged-out victory right around the corner no-bid money grabbing war for profiteering.
And yes, make no mistake--soulless new con repubs want all the profit off the dead they can whine out of us.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:17pm
Posted by Balrog at 07/22/2008 @ 7:10pm
I would refer you to the McCain/Feingold legislation for finance reform. Obama has swown so far that there will be no change in the status quo. He's also shown that he cannot be trusted. Let's face it. He's an unvetted candidate who people really don't know. Now, is that what we need at this perilous time? I think not. I don't think an unvetted candidate should ever be regarded for the presidency.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:17pm
I think the boots on the ground would disagree.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:22pm
Plus he wants to run away from Iraq now that victory is at hand. Do you know he still won't acknowledge that the surge was a success. Just about everyone on both sides of the aisle thinks so except Obama and maybe Dennis Kucinich. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:53pm
Isn't it McCain's campaign claiming we already won? Also isn't it McCain's campaign now setting a 2 year timeline on leaving Iraq? Hmm. Looks like McCain is getting in tempo too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:23pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:53pm
Besides if we stay Frank we have to turn it into an occupation because the Iraqis want us out. Which means no we are no longer liberating Iraq, we are taking it over. We are leaving at the behest of Iraqs leaders which is a victory. We aren't running away.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:25pm
Hillary tried this and failed. McCain is trying and will fail. This is almost sad to watch. The vestiges of a status quo style campaign. McCain better start thinking outside of the box or he is going to fall flat on his face. He should try debating the issues. Instead of this smear he is starting to run.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:26pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/22/2008 @ 7:20pm
I'll be the first to admit that invading Iraq was a colossal screw-up and the ensuing battle was a cluster fuck under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld. I'll also be the first to congratulate John McCain for recognizing the problem and offering the surge as a solution under the command on General Patraeus.
When Obama admits that he was wrong when he said that the surge would result to even bigger casualities than we had up until that point experienced, and gives credit to Patraeus and the troops under his command, then I'll begin to respect B.O. Until then, he'll be just an inexperienced loud mouth with no solution to anything.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:17pm I think the boots on the ground would disagree. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:22pm
Don't be an asshole, our troops aren't the ones making the billions and billions, they're the ones having to justify themselves getting killed for your greedy new con repub dic'tator worshipering US Constitution hating pervs. Oh wait maybe you are an asshole using the fate of our troops as cover.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
I would rather have an inexperienced candidate in office who has proven sound judgment and forethought than an experienced candidate who has proven an inability to see the big picture and look at politics as they exist TODAY not during the Cold War.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:29pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:23pm
No, Mccain has ALWAYS said that when the job is done, the troops will come home. Obama is trying to capitalize on the effort that was none of his doing and in fact, an effort that he tried to prevent. That's what happens when you don't have military experience.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:30pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:25pm
If we leave prematurely, the Iraqi's will be begging us to come back as soon as the shit hits the fan. That's why special forces will remain there for an undetermined amount of time.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:32pm
>>>The the congresswoman told reporters in a national conference call: "He is in no way sophisticated enough, I don't think --- I mean he is frighteningly inexperienced when it comes to international affairs and national security policy.<<<
And tell us Heather - how much experience did George W have before becoming president? How about Bill Clinton? How about Ronald Reagan? How about Jimmy Carter?
How about you, Heather?
This myth that the president is really running for the office of secretary of defense or secretary of state must be exposed for what it is.
If McCain wants to run for secretary of defense, he is free to do so, but he should step aside and give up the nomination to another Republican that has "experience" on the WIDE-RANGE of issues that Americans care about.
Reducing the role of president to that of secretary of defense is the biggest self-serving fraud being pushed by McCain and his surrogates, because they believe McCain when he says he doesn't know much about the economy or hasn't thought much about healthcare.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/22/2008 @ 7:32pm
frankgrits said:
"Afghanistan will become the new front soon as Al Qaeda is gathering there"
and later said:
"I'll also be the first to congratulate John McCain for recognizing the problem and offering the surge as a solution under the command on General Patraeus"
so, in essence, the surge caused al qaeda to regroup in afghanistan.
and there we have it: the surge caused lack of attention elsewhere. and the 'elsewhere' is soon becoming the central battleground in the perpetual 'war on terror'.
great!
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 7:33pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:26pm
I think that after the republican convention, McCain will get such a huge bounce that Obama will be in a real fight. It's going to be awfully hard for people to see up close and personal McCain's story and not want to vote for him. Obama offers nothing by comparison except some vague notion of change.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:34pm
Lib... You will never see the forest thru the trees... Your boy Bush has done such a magnificent job... Bravo Zulu to you and your kind for 'keeping the faith, STAYING THE COURSE'... please.
4000 + dead american troops is 4000 needlessly dead. Dont give us your FALSE argument that somehow YOU have your finger on the pulse of the 10's of thousands of familes and friends suffering because of a needless unilateral police action (based on lies and deciet)... You really think you KNOW whats in thier hearts ..?? Give us a break.... THEY WANT TO SEE THE WAR WON..?? Are you thier spokesperson...?? You sure you are not a Bush Speech writer ..?? Such propaganda...
Define Victory..?
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:34pm
When Obama admits that he was wrong when he said that the surge would result to even bigger casualities t
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
We don't have all the casualty numbers. I already posted that several times. They're holding back the suicide numbers and the vets are dying once they're out of Iraq. Tons are getting cancers, 10,000+ have brain damage. The numbers very well may be twice that of Vietnam, but until the gag order is off and the dic'tator is gone, all we know about the casualty numbers is that they are lying to us.
FrGr apparently is self-disabledly blind to new info that conflicts with his ideology.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:36pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
Be careful. Don't be making personal attacks or you'll be banned like Me and Dillweed were for a week. Zero is next. Big brother is watching.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:36pm
When Obama admits that he was wrong when he said that the surge would result to even bigger casualities than we had up until that point experienced, and gives credit to Patraeus and the troops under his command, then I'll begin to respect B.O. Until then, he'll be just an inexperienced loud mouth with no solution to anything. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
Funny. He has offered many solutions to many things. Just ones you choose not to see because you don't actually care about what he is saying. All you care about is what he has taken AWAY from Hillary.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:37pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:29pm
In order to be a successful President, CIC and political animal, you have to have a sense of history
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:38pm
That's what happens when you don't have military experience. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:30pm
Says the person whooo agreed with Obama about this point 3 months ago.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:39pm
Look at the shadow vampires here crapping in their panties. The truth, the light and the sight of a real leader sends them to scurry back into the moldy weed infested cracks in the sidewalk from whence they came. They are posting like crazy in a last ditch wail. The demons are retreating from the light. It would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic. Let us celebrate their agony and hope for the best in November.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 7:41pm
In order to be a successful President, CIC and political animal, you have to have a sense of history Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:38pm
A sense of history AND foresight to see the future. A sense of history doesn't help you much if you don't have the foresight to see the changing landscape to come. McCain lacks the ability to see the future. He plays politics that are old and no longer work. The world has changed drastically since the Cold War yet he plays like we are still fighting the Russians. I want a President with foresight, not someone who is stuck looking to the past.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:41pm
If we leave prematurely, the Iraqi's will be begging us to come back as soon as the shit hits the fan. That's why special forces will remain there for an undetermined amount of time. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:32pm
They are asking us to leave. Are you suggesting we turn this into a military occupation? In which the shit will truly hit the fan.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:42pm
No, Mccain has ALWAYS said that when the job is done, the troops will come home.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:30pm
The problem is is 'the job' has nothing to do with our troops-- it's about 'war profiteering'. It always was and it always will be. Our troops were fodder for the rich corporations in with the hsuB/cHeney admin that lied us into the war in the first place. They're making billions and billions while our kids get killed. Stop using the killing of our kids to justify profiteering.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:44pm
I think that after the republican convention, McCain will get such a huge bounce that Obama will be in a real fight. It's going to be awfully hard for people to see up close and personal McCain's story and not want to vote for him. Obama offers nothing by comparison except some vague notion of change. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:34pm
A bounce FROM WHAT? People know McCain's story. I am sorry to separate you from this fantasy that you have but McCain's story is known by most voters. They don't care. No body cares that he was captured and tortured you know why? He has shown a lack of foresight and understanding in the modern political landscape. We need a President who can see the future of this country NOT one who is stuck in the past. McCain will not get a bounce from anything. He has had months to try to bounce himself up and it hasn't happened. He has months of Obama and Hillary at each others throats and he still couldn't capitalize. Now he is trying to employ Hillary's tactics, which didn't work for her, against Obama. McCain will fail because of a lack of foresight and a lack of ability to think creatively.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:46pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 7:36pm
Thats a pretty weak argument. The figures of casualities are there for anyone to see. You're good at citing polls. How about posting pre-surge casualty figures and post-surge casualty figures so everyone can compare.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:57pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:37pm
Thgis is an election with Obama vs. McCain. Hillary has nothing to do with it anymore. Unless of course Obama decides he needs Hillary's supporters and names her as VP. I'll be voting for McCain in either case.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:59pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:41pm
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:59pm
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 7:33pm
Twisted logic. No enemy in their right minds would stick around to be annihlated. We chased the Nazis all over Europe and the Japs all over the pacific until we finally destroyed them. Al Qaeda is no different. We struck a major blow to them in Iraq but they will return there if we run away. As for Afghanistan, well everyone knows that that is a hotbed of terrorist activity. But war there will be much more difficult than in Iraq logistically speaking and then of course there's Iran.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:05pm
You'll be wasting your vote.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:05pm
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:59pm
Those who can't apply history to the current changed or changing landscape are doomed to fail at applying it. History is very very important. You can learn many many many lessons from it. However. If you can't understand where things are going there is no benefit to understanding where they came from. If you can't see the changing landscape ahead of you then you are doomed to apply your knowledge of history without any actual foresight to see it's repercussions. Without foresight you may apply a solution like Hiroshima to problem like Iraq 1.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:09pm
They could have had a surge of 10 new troops and the result would have been the same. Ethnic cleansing and over one million refugees along with neighborhoods in Baghdad being literally walled off between Sunni and Shia. Not to mention the Mahdi Army being told to initiate a ceasefire and go after Al Qaeda instead of American troops by Moqtada Al Sadr was the main reason for the reduction of troop casualties. No mention of that in the media. The McCain surge was a failure when it comes to political reconcilliation. The Iraqis are solving their own problems. Which they have been doing for thousands of years. Get real..
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:10pm
They could have had a surge of 10 new troops and the result would have been the same. Ethnic cleansing and over one million refugees along with neighborhoods in Baghdad being literally walled off between Sunni and Shia. Not to mention the Mahdi Army being told to initiate a ceasefire and go after Al Qaeda instead of American troops by Moqtada Al Sadr was the main reason for the reduction of troop casualties. No mention of that in the media. The McCain surge was a failure when it comes to political reconcilliation. The Iraqis are solving their own problems. Which they have been doing for thousands of years. Get real..
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:10pm
They could have had a surge of 10 new troops and the result would have been the same. Ethnic cleansing and over one million refugees along with neighborhoods in Baghdad being literally walled off between Sunni and Shia. Not to mention the Mahdi Army being told to initiate a ceasefire and go after Al Qaeda instead of American troops by Moqtada Al Sadr was the main reason for the reduction of troop casualties. No mention of that in the media. The McCain surge was a failure when it comes to political reconcilliation. The Iraqis are solving their own problems. Which they have been doing for thousands of years. Get real..
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:11pm
They could have had a surge of 10 new troops and the result would have been the same. Ethnic cleansing and over one million refugees along with neighborhoods in Baghdad being literally walled off between Sunni and Shia. Not to mention the Mahdi Army being told to initiate a ceasefire and go after Al Qaeda instead of American troops by Moqtada Al Sadr was the main reason for the reduction of troop casualties. No mention of that in the media. The McCain surge was a failure when it comes to political reconcilliation. The Iraqis are solving their own problems. Which they have been doing for thousands of years. Get real..
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:12pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/22/2008 @ 7:32pm
Jimmy Carter served in the Navy form 1946-1953 rising to Lt. senior grade, served as engineering officer aboard the Sea Wolf, one of the first atomic submarines, became a millionaire as a peanut farmer, was a georgia State Senator from 1963-1967 , Governor of Georgia from 1971-1975 and in1974 headed the Democratic national Campaign Committee.
Ronald Reagan served in the Army from 1942-1945 during WWII but was kept out of combat because of poor eyesight, served as president of the Screen Actors Guild1947-1952 and 1959-1960, and served as Governor of California from 1967-1975.
Bill Clinton never served in the military but instead attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, drew number 311 in the National Lottery draft and was saftly out of the draft, was a law Professor at the University of Arkansas from 1973-1976, Attorney General of Arkansas from 1977-1979, Governor of Arkansas from 1979-1981 and againg from1983-1992, 1991 named the most effective Governor in the nation.
George W. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968-1972 and in the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Alabama, was discharged in 1973 in order to enter Harvard Business School, served as Governor of Texas from 1994-2000. He is also the son of George H.W. Bush.
Please post Obama's qualifications for the Presidency so that everyone can compare.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:12pm
They could have had a surge of 10 new troops and the result would have been the same. Ethnic cleansing and over one million refugees along with neighborhoods in Baghdad being literally walled off between Sunni and Shia. Not to mention the Mahdi Army being told to initiate a ceasefire and go after Al Qaeda instead of American troops by Moqtada Al Sadr was the main reason for the reduction of troop casualties. No mention of that in the media. The McCain surge was a failure when it comes to political reconcilliation. The Iraqis are solving their own problems. Which they have been doing for thousands of years. Get real..
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:13pm
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:59pm
Think of time and history as a train. If you look behind you you see miles and miles of track that have taught you how to move over the the terrain that you have been through, then you come a fork. Without the foresight of a map you won't know which of those forks leads over a cliff and no matter how well you have learned from the past terrain it won't help you unless you can also use foresight to help you apply it to future terrain.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:13pm
Please post Obama's qualifications for the Presidency so that everyone can compare. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:12pm
Like the McCain campaign you repeat tired arguments that never worked the first time.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:14pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:09pm
No offense intended but that is a naive viewpoint. Do you really think that John McCain with all of his collective life's experience, being involved in ever crucial foreign policy decision for the last several decades and his knowledge and relationship with the world's leaders would be at a disadvantage to Barack Obama who until two days ago never set foot in a war zone?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by chaoszen at 07/22/2008 @ 8:10pm
I've read about it several times and several places.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:17pm
Be careful. Don't be making personal attacks or you'll be banned like Me and Dillweed were for a week. Zero is next. Big brother is watching.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:36pm
So, the speech police are actually on duty. I don't believe it is just personal atttacks being monitored. I believe we just found out what the creepy 'warn this person' function is all about. Blog timeouts for punishment. How quaint.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2008 @ 8:26pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:13pm
Yogi Berra once said that if you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Listen, foreigh policy is a very very complex area. If a President doesn't have a firm grasp of the world and all of it's moving parts, no good can come of it. I feel that Obama is wet behind the ears and is up against a foreign policy giant in John McCain. You disagree and there you have it.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:28pm
Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2008 @ 8:26pm
Yeah, I though it was a little girlish but it's their ball.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:29pm
I'll probably get kicked off again for saying that.
I think that some people here were making complaints because I was returning every attack against me serve for serve. I just used language that offended some people's tender little ears here and I was given a timeout. That was the first time that ever happened by the way. Seems that big brother doesn't like bad things said about the messiah either. Oh well, if you don't here from me again you'll know why. Or I'll simply change my handle and come back incognito like so many others have done.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:33pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/22/2008 @ 8:30pm
To be honest, I tried but couldn't find anything worthwhile except for a couple of years in the Senate.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:34pm
Yeah, I though it was a little girlish but it's their ball.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:29pm
Careful, that is a sexist remark.
oops, that was a personal attack.
oops, I confessed to an infringment.
ridiculous...
Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2008 @ 8:37pm
well,
he seems "experienced" enough for me.
look at this:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SIMXHjccfAI/AAAAAAAAA7M/_cYHAPjX0PA/ s1600-h/convention.jpg
"As a result of Mr. Farber's efforts, dozens of organizations have signed up as corporate sponsors of the Denver convention, including six that are lobbying clients of his firm: UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, AT&T, COMCAST, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, WESTERN UNION AND GOOGLE. In return for these donations, which can go up to $1 million or more, sponsors are promised prominent display space for corporate marketing and access to elected officials and Democratic leaders at a large number of parties and receptions."
are you experienced?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 8:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 8:37pm
Careful now. With all those corporate sponsers you're going to make Cccomfo1 think that Obama is just more of the same. You'll spoil the illusion for him.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:42pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/22/2008 @ 8:40pm
C'mon now be serious. With Obama's resume, do you really think that he'd be considered as the cEO of a large corporation let alone the Presidency of the united States of America, See how silly it sounds when you actually see it in black and white?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:45pm
Andrea Mitchell blasted Obama for doing fake interviews in his journey so far saying, "He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq."
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:47pm
On topic. A couple of days ago, the NY Times refused to print a repot from John McCain, responding to one printed by Obama. Here in it's entirety is the report that the Times refused to print. kudos to The Nation for letting me post it here:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation ?hard? but not ?hopeless.? Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,? he said on January 10, 2007. ?In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that ?our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.? But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, ?Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.? Even more heartening has been progress that?s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki?s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City?actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama?s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his ?plan for Iraq? in advance of his first ?fact finding? trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five ?surge? brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his ?plan for Iraq.? Perhaps that?s because he doesn?t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be ?very dangerous.?
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we?ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ?Mission Accomplished? banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war?only of ending it. But if we don?t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:53pm
Goodnight.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:53pm
Listen, foreigh policy is a very very complex area. If a President doesn't have a firm grasp of the world and all of it's moving parts, no good can come of it. I feel that Obama is wet behind the ears and is up against a foreign policy giant in John McCain. You disagree and there you have it. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:28pm
Having a firm grasp and spot knowledge is great however we are talking about two different things. You are talking about knowledge, I am talking about understanding. Knowing WHAT happened does not entitle you to know WHY it happened. This applies to my same statement about the knowledge of history that you called naive. McCain has proven himself to be lacking in UNDERSTANDING. He has volumes of "experience"but he hasn't learned from it. Sometimes our experiences can keep us trapped in the past without the ability to see the future. McCain is a dinosaur. I don't mean that in the old sense. I mean that as a politician he fights the fight in the way of the good ol' days. He hasn't figured out how to apply historic knowledge to the changed and ever changing landscape.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
I would rather have an inexperienced candidate in office who has proven sound judgment and forethought than an experienced candidate who has proven an inability to see the big picture and look at politics as they exist TODAY not during the Cold War.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:29pm
Where has Obama proved he has sound judgment and forethought? And you're being Inane and childish about McCain. No conservative including John McCain is looking at politics in the way we looked at the Cold War.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
One last thing. Does anyone wonder why the NYT is trying to censor John McCai? They did not want anyone to see this report. Later.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:54pm
Read McCain's report above and tell me if you still intend to vote for Obama. Now I've got to go.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 9:00pm
Careful now. With all those corporate sponsers you're going to make Cccomfo1 think that Obama is just more of the same. You'll spoil the illusion for him. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:42pm
Uhh as opposed to the one you are voting for who is guranteed to be more of the same?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 9:07pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:53pm
Actually I intend to vote even more for him. McCain directly twisted what Maliki said.
"To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future."
Iraq HAS specified when it wanted a pullout. They said they want the US out by around 2010. Which is along the lines of an Obama timetable.
"Disagreement between Senator McCain and Senator Obama deepened when Iraqi Government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh said, ''We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq.''
Senator Obama repeatedly said he wanted to have those forces out of the country by the middle of 2010."
So McCain directly lied to you about the wants of the Iraqi government and you bought it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 9:17pm
>>>Please post Obama's qualifications for the Presidency so that everyone can compare.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:12pm<<<
Barack Obama's qualifications to be president?
1) Graduate of Columbia University in International Relations
2) Community organizer on South Side of Chicago helping the homeless, the jobless, and ex-offenders re-integrate into society.
3) Graduate of Harvard Law school where he was the FIRST black editor-in-chief of the Harvard law review in the 200 year history of the school.
4) Civil rights lawyer at one of the most prestigiuous boutique firms in Chicago helping victims of civil rights abuses.
5) Law professor at the University of Chicago where he taught Constitutional law.
6) State Senator in Illinois where he rose to president of the Senate in just eight years.
7) United Sates Senator from Illinois where he serves on the Foreign Relations committee, Environment and Public Works Committee, and Veterans Affairs Committee.
Aside from these resume type experiences, the man is a POLITICAL PHENOM with extraordinary political skill. He used this skill to bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass PROGRESSIVE legislation.
And on top of all of this, he has MASTERED the power of the bully pulpit as one of the best orators and inspirational speakers in several generations, which is necessary for ANY president who wants to distinguish himself in office.
When you compare this background to McCain's bottom-of-his-class performance at the Naval Academy, his father-assisted appointments in the Navy, his recklessness as a pilot that led to him being shot down in Vietnam, his cowardice as a POW for cracking under pressure, his latching onto big money by marrying the daughter of a wealthy campaign contributor, his defense of Charles Keating, a despicable asshole who fleeced the savings of the elderly so he could gamble on risky real estate development projects in the Savings and Loan debacle, his INABILTY to command the bully pulpit and inspire Americans, and his lack of vision and command of basic facts necessary to lead in a WIDE RANGE of public policy areas...it is clear that Barack Obama is extraordinarily qualified to be president and John McCain is a lame old has-been, who would have never been nominated had the right wing of the Republican party not split there vote between Romney and Huckabee!
Get you your facts straight, FRANKGRITS, as this is serious business.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/22/2008 @ 9:18pm
Actually, the NYTimes not printing McCain's op-ed piece really just spared him embarassment. Sort of like this so-called "foreign policy giant" confused Sunni and Shi'ite, or just recently when he referenced the Iraq-Pakistan border (hint: there is no such thing).
For example, McCain cited as a metric of the surge's "success" that violence is now down to unacceptable 2004 levels instead of the levels we had in 2006. He also overlooks that much of the reduction in violence is that Baghdad had already been ethnically-cleansed. Didn't occur to him that violence might drop when you've run out of people to shoot at.
McCain also mentioned that Obama denied that any political progress has resulted during the period of the surge. Maybe Obama said that because he was right--no hydrocarbons bill, no provincial elections bill, no resolution of the Kirkuk issue.
McCain mentioned the US Embassy stating that most benchmarks had been met. Except that they didn't do that--the claim was made by neo-con Fred Kagan and which has been debunked by a CNN reporter http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/09/kagan-benchmarks/?sortby=toprated
Posted by brunowe at 07/22/2008 @ 9:32pm
"No enemy in their right minds would stick around to be annihlated"
so, then, what was the function of the surge if, indeed, "no enemy....would stick around"?
Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 10:25pm
Frank... love how you cleaned up Dubya's 'Military' record... Sounds impressive if we all didnt know the truth that he was too busy to show up for most of his 'service'.... Come on ... What about all the failed companys he left behind..?? Does that not go on his resume..??
If and when things turn around for this country in Obama's presidency, will you admit that you were wrong..?? Or will the partisan attacks keep coming and coming...??
Lib... Did i hear you call Mccain a conservative..?? LOL..!! Funny how it twists eh..?? I mean, your hero's Rush/Coulter BOTH claimed they'd vote for the Democrat if Mccain was the nominee... Explain... really....
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/22/2008 @ 10:48pm
Other Leaders are rearranging their schedules to meet with NoObama so they can size him up and then kick him in the arse. They will be able to figure out that he knows nothing, will have no guts to stand up to anyone with his kumbaya foreign policies. GIve me a break. At least McLame will stand up for Americans and our sovereign rights and not want to please a bunch of whiny Eurocrats with NObama type of "please love me policies".
Posted by apoorspic at 07/23/2008 @ 12:25am
How about posting pre-surge casualty figures and post-surge casualty figures so everyone can compare.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 7:57pm
OK propaganda eater, there is no surge-- it's all made up. They sold - you bought. They pitched - you caught. Get that through that brick you call a head-- the numbers of deployed troops went up and down multiple times and the amount of death and destruction went up and down multiple times. Each time they said victory was just around the corner. The only true thing is that there is no truth. If you said there are a lot less Iraqi to kill, maim or disappear, that might be much closer to the truth than saying we're closer to victory. The vet admin already was proven to be cooking the numbers and the published numbers do not count whole areas of casualties. They lied about WMD, purposefully negated a methodical scientific way to count Iraqi killed, disappeared billions and billions of dollars, and yet you eat it all up like a little kid watching cartoons and thinking they're real. It's simply just sad how extremely naive you are. How old are you (I say ironically)?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 12:33am
RE: In-experience ...
Good point, Obama's point. If Bush could be a prez (and relatively good prez in some aspects), why not me?
Problem is, anyone could make a prez, but at what cost to the people?
Posted by HelenDAO at 07/23/2008 @ 03:00am
Wow! Really? Ok, let me get this straight--it was the press' adoration that obsessed for 6 weeks about the Obamas' Reverend Wright "connection", and it was the adoring press that went on and on about Obama being an elitist (code word "uppity"). Yes, I remember.
It was the adoring press that thought Obama was not black enough, and, oh no, too black--for after all--ALL THOSE BLACK PEOPLE WERE SUPPORTING HIM!! AHHHHHHHH…..
And it was the press' adoration that tripped out about Obama's use of the word of "revised" in the context of the Iraq war, and, oh lord, the adoring press exalted the fact that Obama voted with the majority of the Senate to pass a crappy FISA bill. Oh yes, the press LOVED that! Especially the LIBERAL press! And add to that the mega "terrorist fist bump" moment of our beloved Obamas--Wow! It doesn't get any better than that.
Then of course it was the adoring FAVORABLE press coverage that managed to obscure the realities of Phil Gramm's insidious nasty corruptive influence on the McCain campaign.
POOR MCCAIN--THE PRESS DID NOT COVER GRAMM'S CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE.
They were too busy obsessing with Reverend Jackson (using the term Reverend loosely) desiring to cut Obama's, shall we say, noogies off. Yeah, that liberal media has sure been sucking up to Obama.
And of course we must not forget the awesome adoring depiction of the Obamas in the New Yorker. Adulation in its highest form.
Let's straight talk here; McCain's accusations are utterly disingenuous. He has no problem with the press obsessing with Obama if it is negative press coverage; he only dislikes Obama's positive coverage.
Face it; it hurts when you see picture after picture of a dynamic leader that can blow you out of the water with his EXPERIENCE in 21st century global communications.
And the fact that he can string a complex articulate group of words together without making a fool out of himself; wow! that sucks.
In addition, he has that unfortunate habit of instilling a confidence in people that he has listened, considered what their perspectives are, and weighed them in the context of America's interests. And--the trifecta--he leads; he is not manipulated and puppeteered by a bevy of corporate masters.
Yeah, that kind of main-street-media bias is quite unfortunate for you McCain. However, it is the audacity of hope for the American people.
Despot Destructors' Devious Deeds Demean
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/23/2008 @ 04:14am
Well, I see FRANK is back....how long until we get another "joke"?
As for McCain...he's desperate and he's scrambling. The Obama trip threw them for a loop.
Mostly because it was THEIR idea and Obama took it and ran with it.
Now the McCain camp (and the Right) are trying to figure out a way to lessen the damage it does to the ONE issue that McCain had a lead on in head-to-head polls...."foreign policy".
If the post-trip polling comes out and Obama matchs, or even surpasses, McCain on foreign policy...McCain has lost the entire summer and now must rely on whatever the 527s can throw at Obama in the fall.
BTW, with all his "30 years of experience"....McCain still thinks "Czechoslovakia" is still one country!
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 09:18am
I'm glad an argument was made above by frankgrits for Bush's experience, or at least a lot about Bush's father and brother--I guess experience can now be encoded on the DNA. And boy, has it done us a lot of good. Ask those dead US soldiers, not to mention Iraqis, what they think of Bush's experience.
Posted by onthehelm at 07/23/2008 @ 09:22am
Posted by onthehelm at 07/23/2008 @ 09:22am
onthe....to get you upto speed, FRANKGRITS is ONLY supporting McCain so that his gal Hillary can run in 2012. He's contradicted nearly everything he posted before Fall of 2007 on this blog in that insane, CULT-like attempt.
Plus he's revealed himself as a racist due to a recent "joke" he made here as well.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 10:44am
If a President doesn't have a firm grasp of the world and all of it's moving parts, no good can come of it. I feel that Obama is wet behind the ears and is up against a foreign policy giant in John McCain. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 8:28pm
A foreign policy giant that still believes Czechoslovakia exists? That thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border? THAT's the "firm grasp of the world and all it's moving parts" you believe McCain to have???
Dude, you are blowing smoke...and making a fool out of yourself in the process.
Posted by Balrog at 07/23/2008 @ 2:31pm
So our choices for president are, "a senile old war hero and a black kid with no experience"? The black kid is really intelligent, although the closer he comes to the white house oval office desk and the smell of the leather chair, the more political he sounds. Now you see me now you don't. John Edwards was right, we have an epic battle on our hands and "we" are loosing.
Posted by julien38 at 07/23/2008 @ 8:34pm
Ok the only proper context for the nonexistent surge:
"There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 9:07pm
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/23/2008 @ 04:14am
¿noogies?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:20pm
testing
Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:22:44 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:22pm
Not only is McCain stating the obvious with respect to Obama's complete lack of foreign policy experience, he could go a bit further in explaining to the American public (since the MSM refuses to do so) that Obama's judgment sucks to a frightening degree as well. Had we followed Obama's advice, we would have cut and run from Iraq long ago, instead of staying the course and winning. This guy is the biggest loser since Jimmy Carter.
Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:27am
Surge or more new con double speak BS?:
Sunday, September 14, 2003
MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
No 'surge', just a lot of fucked-up as long as possible dragged-out for no-bid money grabbing.
The only proper context for the nonexistent surge:
"There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003."
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 08:54am
Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:27am
Sorry, PONTI, but given his "revisionist history" view of the "Anbar Awakening"....McCain is not only wrong, but the facts bear out that Obama may have been right.
General, then-Colonel, McFarlane contradicts McCain on the timeline of the "Surge" and the "coming around" of the Sunni sheikhs.
Of course if you want to take the word of a SENATOR who visited "the Green Zone" a few times over a combat officer who was stationed in Iraq for months....
that's your call.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:08am
Obama's judgment sucks to a frightening degree as well. Had we followed Obama's advice, we would have cut and run from Iraq long ago, ...
Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:27am
er, we'd have 4000+ less dead US troops, 100's of thousands less dead Iraqis, not to mention the millions of maimed and dispossessed, from an Iraq war Obama wound not have waged in the first place. Talk about a lot better judgement.
BTW, if we would have had an Obama or Gore instead of the failure that is the hsuB/cHeney admin, there would have not even been a 9/11 to begin with. hsuB got the biggest pass on that negligence with the public thinking, (wrongly empathizing with the lying loser), that hsub could do no worse-- hsuB proved everyone wrong.
One can only conclude that if new con repubs think the hsuB/cHeney admin are an example of success-- new con repubs must truly be anti-American, because all hsuB/cHeney admin's been successful at-- is destroying the USA. The new con repubs only regret is that they weren't totally successful. Yet.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 09:17am
And because of Obama's 'conservative' experience:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new poll released Thursday shows overwhelming support from Latinos for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain.
Obama's "strong showing in this survey represents a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries, when Obama lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton by a margin of nearly 2-to-1," according to Pew Hispanic Center associate director Mark Hugo Lopez.
Obama's favorability among Latinos is slightly up from a Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May, which showed Obama with 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain.
"He now appears to be even more popular than Hillary Clinton among Latinos," Lopez said."
...
On Super Tuesday, Obama received only 38 percent of the Latino vote, while former rival Sen. Clinton received 58 percent, according to CNN exit polling.
http://tinyurl.com/55rs9x
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 11:51am
"Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters, the nationwide Pew Hispanic Center poll found, is at 66 percent versus 23 percent favoring McCain.
Only 8 percent said they are likely to vote for the presumptive GOP presidential candidate."
Doesn't that mean that 15% of Hispanics that like McCave-- won't ever vote for McCave!?!?!
OUCH!
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:08pm
What's interesting about that article is..."Latinos support Hillary, but will never vote for Obama" was one of the FRANKGRITS' talking points as Her Majesty's hopes faded.
Yet another FG prognostication in the dumper.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 1:21pm
Yeah like I might not be the one to talk, but I do think most if not all predictions about how this was going to go, across the board, are being thrown out now.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:42pm
but I do think most if not all predictions about how this was going to go, across the board, are being thrown out now.---Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:42pm
Uh....HSUB.....that include "Gore becomes Obama's Veep"?
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 3:35pm
No, that one is still in play, so to speak.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:13pm
I think the only surge that McSame is REALLY rooting for is his own. This man does not have a genuine bone in his body. Just think about his little "stroll through the market," when he was flanked with military protection, risking their lives to protect him during his little photo op as he tried to deceive us into thinking that it was a walk in the park. McSame is all lies.
There are three kinds of McSame supporters:
1) Fat Cats 2) The fearful uninformed (otherwise known as the Republican base) 3) The parasites of the Fat Cats
Please America, not again!
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/28/2008 @ 02:11am