New Congresscritter calls for end to war; Pubs boo and walk out

[Steve_MB]

@Santo Rugger

But not in the current state. He was referring to the same way we’re in Japan, Korea, and Germany, where solders aren’t dying every day.

If he means that staying in Iraq is to be conditional upon those circumstances being present, he should explicitly say so (including an unambiguous statement that failure to meet those circumstances will result in removal of troops).

[Steve_MB]

@Mr. Moto

I added the boldings.

Is McCain also in favor of:

1. Continuing to run massive deficits for a hundred years, so long as this does not cause inflation or interest rates to increase.

2. Continuing to depend on imported oil for a hundred years, so long as this does not distort American foreign policy options.

3. Continuing to provide various subsidies for a hundred years, so long as this does not cause distortions in the economy.

[Steve_MB]

@John Mace

Well, if he’s only OK with having troops there if Americans weren’t being killed, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that he’d want the troops pulled out at some point before the 100 years comes along if they were still being killed?

He gets a pass via that loophole if, and only if, he takes that position explicitly.

[flight]

While I do not in the least agree with Mr. Moto’s ability to see lies where there are none, I don’t have any problem with the pubs walking out. They are annoyed and they showed it in what I think was an appropriate manner. I think they are completely wrong on the topic, but not on the expression.

[LilShieste]

@BrainGlutton

Me, too. I’d like that. (If both/all sides felt equally free to do it.) But walking out is even less mature behavior.

I don’t know about that. When I’m at the movie theater, I consider the person who is booing and yelling at the movie less mature than the person who simply walks out. </aside>

Speier’s statements did not contain any lies. I agree that some democrats have gone out of their way to misrepresent McCain’s statement, but that’s not the case here.

AFAIC, McCain’s statement was a bit of a non-sequitur, which is what caused all of this hullabaloo. He said that he would be fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, as long as no Americans were getting wounded or killed.

Originally said by me (hypothetically)
I personally don’t mind the Iraq war, as long as it doesn’t cost billions of dollars, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and displaces thousands more Iraqis.

If I were to make the above statement, people would either stare at me in bewildered amazement, or smack me upside the head for being a smartass.

When people ask how long we’re going to be in Iraq, they’re asking about how long our troops will be “on the ground, in a war-like situation”. That’s not the question that McCain answered.

[John_Mace]

@Steve MB

He gets a pass via that loophole if, and only if, he takes that position explicitly.

Really? Says who?

Look, no matter what you think of McCain and his statement, he did not say he was willing to “sacrifice four generations of Americans”. You can call him a nutcase for thinking Iraq will ever be peaceful, but that’s what he’s aiming for.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Look, no matter what you think of McCain and his statement, he did not say he was willing to “sacrifice four generations of Americans”.

Agreed. But that don’t make Speier a liar.

[Merijeek]

@vibrotronica

Republicans sat still when Bush lied. They applauded him even.

Well, sure, but he lied because Jesus wanted him to.

-Joe

[RedFury]

@John Mace

Well, if he’s only OK with having troops there if Americans weren’t being killed, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that he’d want the troops pulled out at some point before the 100 years comes along if they were still being killed?

Oh come on John! Give it a rest already. I honestly thought you’d finally gotten off the fence. Guy wants to say something, let him fuckin’ you know…say it! Why should/would anyone vote on “assumptions”? Might as well ask your friendly neighborhood psychic.

Besides, you damn well know what they say about “assuming.” }:>

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Agreed. But that don’t make Speier a liar.

I wouldn’t call her a liar, and I said in my first post that I wasn’t sure it was a lie. If she purposely misrepresented his views, then she lied. I can give her the benefit of the doubt this time, but not if she does it again.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

She didn’t even do it a first time.

[Nancarrow]

@BrainGlutton

Because the statement, “The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one,” contains no lies. Not a single one. And you know it.

ISTM that you and Mr. Moto are talking at cross-purposes, deliberately or otherwise.

Mr. Moto, if you parse the statement logically, BG is perfectly right that there is no lie there. You would do your side more credit if you acknowledged the difference between a lie and a misdirection.

And you, BrainGlutton (and Dio) would do your side more credit if you acknowledged that there was a pretty nasty misdirection there.

Consider this statement, assuming for the sake of argument that Bush likes waffles and McCain likes pancakes: “The president wants waffles served in all Federal buildings, and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could open pancake stalls in the Capitol. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we spend the next century shouting ‘Heil Hitler’ whilst clubbing newborn babes to death with steel-tipped kittens”.

All three propositions in that quote are perfectly true (ok, two perhaps only arguendo). But there is a rhetorical implication from the first sentence to the second, that is not logically justified, and is… rather mean.

Hey I can see what a bloodbath Iraq is, that doesn’t mean a military presence there for a century would even come close to sacrificing four generations.
Neither in WWII nor in Vietnam was anything approaching even a single generation sacrificed. (By Americans. By the people they were fighting… closer)

PRECISION, people! Chrissakes. What the hell is this board, a sodding Youtube clip commentary? FUCK. :mad: :mad:

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There was no misdirection.

[wring]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There was no misdirection.

Sure there was, Dio - the first misdirection was done by McCain, when he made the quote in the first place, it wasn’t a real answer to the question he’d been asked, but he (at this stage) will refuse to commit to (essentially) what would lead you to pull combat troops out of Iraq? So, since he misdirected his answer and instead gave a hypothetically never ever likely to happen (akin to “what color unicorn will you give your granddaughter?”), referring to his misdirection w/o the qualifying ‘of course, there’s no fucking way that Iraq’s ever going to be the same as Japan’, is also misdirection.

But absolutely no politician at that level is ever going to get anywhere w/nuanced statements - they don’t fit well into 15 second soundbites.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Please identify exactly which sentence is a lie.

I’d also like to see which sentence. Hell, break it down word by word and tell us which WORDS are lies so we can go from there.

@vibrotronica

Republicans sat still when Bush lied. They applauded him even.

Standing ovations, sometimes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

McCain was petulant and stupid in his bravado of committing America to being in Iraq for 100, 1000, or 10,000 years. I know it sucks to eat a shit sandwich, but damn, Mr. Moto, you’re just gonna have to belly up to the bar. Boo fucking hoo.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here’s Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker magazine discussing the exchange that McCain had with the guy at the town hall meeting: A Hundred Years' War? | The New Yorker

It has a transcript of the whole exchange. Check it out and see who’s engaging in misdirections, evasions and non-responses. McCain is a weaseling douchebag. If he wants to play the tough straight-talker, let’s see some. I’ve got no problem holding him to account for his bullshit.

As Hertzberg concludes:

But what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn’t really all that unfair. McCain’s wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

Here’s a link to the “Yes We Can” parody video, starring John “100 Years” McCain. Just for fun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

[Cervaise]

@Mr. Moto

That is something Democrats do not want to do - they want to harp on the “hundred years” comment to whip up the crowds (like you guys) and provide no context at all.

Yeah, God damn America!

[Sitnam]

I really don’t think McCain would’ve ended the war in Vietnam because he wouldn’t have wanted the world to fall to Communism. Experience is overrated if it’s not applicable, who gives a shit if I can work an abacus.

[RTFirefly]

Well, it’s a good thing the GOP is taking a stand for civility in the face of the dirty fucking hippies who oppose the war and say ‘fuck’ a lot. :rolleyes: