[QUOTE=elfkin477]
I can’t believe I’m defending McCain, but he made it clear that he was talking about having troups nominally stationed there for 100 years, not fighting in a war that long. How do we know this? Because his very next statement was to compare it to sites where we’ve had troops stationed in Europe and Asia for over 60 years. There aren’t too many people all worked up about the over 30,000 troops in still in Japan, mostly because they’re not getting shot at and they weren’t drafted. Do you suppose we’ll keep all 150,000 military personnel there indefinitely, or withdraw the majority once this ill conceived war is over?
[/QUOTE]
Then there was the bomb,bomb,bomb bomb Iran thing. Some of us see him as an expansionist war monger with a bad temper. Not my presidential choice under any circumstances.
If we stay we will have to fight. Iraq will not be a safe haven in the near future.
I guess that’s the last nail in the coffin, huh?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I had a bone to pick with him bigtime… I saw him interviewed maybe a couple of months ago and he insinuated that the country was not ready for a black president; and that he thought Obama would be killed if he became president. That made me see red because it’s this kind of thinking that holds people back. I tried to get onto his myspace so I can punk him off for saying such a thing, but than I forgot about it…
Well, to be fair, in the linked article he says he still believes the country isn’t ready for a black President.
[/QUOTE]
I had someone ask me, when they saw me wearing my “Got Hope?” t-shirt, if I really thought the country was ready for a black president.
Well first of all, if I didn’t, why would I be wearing the t-shirt? Duh.
So when she asked me that, I said, “What do you think we need to do to prepare? It’s a SKIN TONE for heaven’s sake. How are we supposed to get “ready” for that?”
There really aren’t enough rolleyes in the universe for such an absurd sentiment.
P.S. I posted a reply to one of your posts in the “Hillary is Unqualified” thread.
[QUOTE=elfkin477]
I can’t believe I’m defending McCain, but he made it clear that he was talking about having troups nominally stationed there for 100 years, not fighting in a war that long. How do we know this? Because his very next statement was to compare it to sites where we’ve had troops stationed in Europe and Asia for over 60 years. There aren’t too many people all worked up about the over 30,000 troops in still in Japan, mostly because they’re not getting shot at and they weren’t drafted. Do you suppose we’ll keep all 150,000 military personnel there indefinitely, or withdraw the majority once this ill conceived war is over?
[/QUOTE]
This is the flaw in McCain’s approach to a solution in Iraq. There is no comparison between the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the mutual cooperation between Japan and the U.S. that followed a devastating war in which Japan was the aggressor. Today, many Japanese would like U.S. bases closed or greatly reduced. This isn’t the Cold War and communism is no longer the ideological threat to capitalism. It is time to think differently. McCain’s statement is indicative of what his presidency will be like, out dated, old world strategies in a new world.
It is audacious and arrogant for the U.S. to invade a sovereign State, build an embassy, military bases, and plan an indefinite presence. Clearly, the situation in Iraq is complicated. It doesn’t matter who is elected in November, it is unlikely the U.S. will begin to withdraw troops any time soon. Both Obama and Clinton plan to keep a residual troop presence in Iraq. I disagree with both candidates on this issue. Okay, maybe Obama and Clinton slightly misrepresented McCain’s statement. It is what politicians do. This is hardly a high crime.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Okay, maybe Obama and Clinton slightly misrepresented McCain’s statement. It is what politicians do. This is hardly a high crime.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, it’s typical. That’s the point. Obama’s comments were offered in response to the notion that he was the one candidate above such political bullshit. Apparently not so much.
And I would disagree that it’s a slight misrepresentation.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I agree, it’s typical. That’s the point. Obama’s comments were offered in response to the notion that he was the one candidate above such political bullshit. Apparently not so much.
And I would disagree that it’s a slight misrepresentation.
[/QUOTE]
Obama is definitely a politician. I don’t think capitalizing on McCain’s hundred year comment grossly misrepresents McCain’s beliefs nor is it a tasteless political con job. It is fair to say that smears and lies will likely originate from the red team.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Obama is definitely a politician. I don’t think capitalizing on McCain’s hundred year comment grossly misrepresents McCain’s beliefs nor is it a tasteless political con job. It is fair to say that smears and lies will likely originate from the red team.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Obama is definitely a politician. I don’t think capitalizing on McCain’s hundred year comment grossly misrepresents McCain’s beliefs nor is it a tasteless political con job.
[/quote]
“I would support a peaceful, long-term presence in Iraq, akin to Japan or South Korea, provided there are no U.S. casualties” bears no resemblance to “McCain wants another 100 years of war in Iraq.” The distinction is wide, important and deliberately made. It’s not a near-miss, and it’s not a slip of the tongue. It is a gross misrepresentation made for the political points it will score with the ignorant.
Well, this is certainly an example from the blue tribe, if you’re looking for one.
