The librarian did not say that no books were mentioned. She refused to say what books, if any, were mentioned. There is a slight difference. I believe it’s called being a professional, you understand.
Loathsome, eh? You’re one of those sensitive souls I mentioned earlier who gets the vapours over such matters I guess.
I have no idea what point you’re making here. Really. My point was, and is, that Palin did not ban any books or urge anyone to ban any books or identify a book to be banned, so to assert that she did, would be false. Like some of the assertions in this thread, if you’re looking for an example.
What occurs, then, which is also predictable, is that people start dancing around pointing out how awful her behavior was anyway; how she must have really wanted to ban books, which is just as bad; and this is an obvious character flaw; and blah, blah, blah, blah. Which, of course, misses the point, the one relevant to this thread. Which is, that to assert that Palin banned books, or urged someone to, or asked for a specific book to be banned, would be false. The lack of concern you see expressed over such assertions shows, I believe, the partisan nature of the concern over integrity and other such staples of campaign “outrage.” It’s “loathsome” only when the other guy does it, apparently.
No, you continue to be a bit off the mark:
The reporter in the cite remembers otherwise. Still no titles, still no books banned.
Oops! Sorry. Yes, we’re in agreement on that, obviously.
That’s a different argument, if I understand you. But if you suggest that McCain is not specific enough regarding what will constitute success in the war in Iraq, I’m not offering the counter argument. I am saying that he did say that given a successfully completed war (however badly you think he has defined this) he’d support a long-term presence in this now stable environment, where U.S. casualties are no longer a material concern.
Again, you can say, “But how the hell do you get to that point? You’re not being clear, Senator!” Or, “But I don’t believe such a stable environment is possible in that area.” But that won’t change the fact that McCain believes otherwise and said he’d support a long-term, post-war presence only under such conditions. You think he’s misguided or unclear? Fine. That does not translate into “McCain said he’s fine with another 100 years of war in Iraq,” which is what Obama asserted. That’s my point.
Oh, I daresay we all might! Given a unanimous resolution in the Iraqi Parliament heaping praise upon George Bush and begging for our continued presence, I may very well be persuaded. Was it Richard Perle who said he expected a statue to Bush to be erected in downtown Baghdad? How’s that coming, you think? Perhaps zoning regulations prohibit, yes, that must be it…
You know, someday soon there will be elections in Iraq, much like our own, in some respects. And a candidate will run on his record as a war hero, how he stood up to torture by the Americans… Similar thing happened in France, after WWII was over and the Germans safely away, it turned out that over 95% of French politicians were active members of the Resistance.
elucidator, then I’ll count you among the “not bloody likely” crowd with regard to the long-term presence. But to your credit, you did concede that the “McCain wants another 100 years of war” comments were a mischaracterization as I recall, way back in another thread where I brought it up.
Yes, it is slightly different. As I say, I think the “wants 100 years of war” is a mischaracterization. But it’s not clear to me that it is contrary, as you have said. And since you came out so strongly, I was hoping that you might be able to elaborate.
And again, there’s the rub: if there are no U.S. casualties, he’d support a long-term presence. If there are U.S. casualties, he’d also support a long-term presence (because we’d not yet have “won the war”). As I said, I don’t see any functional difference between the two, at least without some definition of “winning”.
To say that there is, or to go to the argumentative extreme of saying that one is contrary to the other, is just as much a mischaracterization in my eyes as saying “McCain wants 100 years of war”.
McCain is lying in this instance. he used the expression himself and it is in common usage. It simply refers to dressing up a bad program with bells and whistles to distract from the idea that it is flawed. It is not about pigs ,It is not about lipstick. It is a metaphor. It is not about Palin .
Sure. But the truth about his views is that they are even more disturbingly batshit than the mischaracterization. If I accuse Hannibal Lecter of being a parking-ticket scofflaw, have I slandered him?
Hell, if the Iraqi people wanted us to stay and colonize them like we did to S Korea, we’d be crazy not to. (Synghman Rhee, anyone? Now, there was an avatar of free speech and democracy! You could agree with him as loudly and as often as you liked…)
But his vision is a fever-dream of victory and triumph. If he had the power, he would bend every effort to make his dream a reality. This makes him a very dangerous man.
Digital Stimulus, I don’t think anyone envisions, expects or would support a never-ending war. McCain has been reluctant to identify a timetable, for the strategic reasons he has noted, but I think you may be overstating his position. Worded differently, if asked at that town hall if he’d support 50 or 100 more years of conditions on the ground in Iraq as they currently existed, he’d likely have said no–and he would have added, I think, that we needn’t consider that scenario either, since we’ll achieve our objectives much, much sooner. You may disagree with that outlook, of course.
What do you think? If asked point blank, “Senator McCain, would you support 100 more years of war in Iraq, should it take that long to achieve the stability you target?” what do you suppose he’d answer, if we forced some truth serum on him and he had to tell what was in his heart? I’ll answer first: I think he’d say no, he would not support such a scenario, nor does he expect it.
Well, yes, if he doesn’t drive, for example. But one wouldn’t need to make such an assertion regarding our buddy Hannibal to paint an accurate picture regarding his shortcomings. The fact that people do make the infamous “100 more years” comment suggests the need to diminish a position that would otherwise, at worst, be innocuous, and at best, have some merit.
Not getting why it’s batshit crazy. The surge is working, by Obama’s own admission, despite his prior strong statements to the contrary. We have had a presence in Kuwait for what, 18 years now? Why? Because it serves our interests.
Is it a slam dunk for Iraq? No. But it’s not crazy. And however you feel about it’s likelihood, it doesn’t discredit it by saying, “McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq” (which you, personally, have not at all said, just to make clear that I’m keeping up).
To be honest, I feel that I can’t be overstating his position (limited to “winning the war”), because I don’t know what it is.
For a little more depth, linked to from that CJR site I gave above is this ABCNews synopsis. It begins:
I’d like to read a transcript of those six minutes; I did a cursory search, but came up with bupkis. I have to wonder if that man from the audience didn’t put something very close to your question to him (i.e., “given current conditions, how long do you propose to stay in Iraq?”).
Yes, you’re correct that his thinking is “we needn’t consider that situation”. But wouldn’t you agree that that’s crap (or, at best, political evasion)? In a violation of “plan for the worst, hope for the best” kinda way? The kind of considering that leads to “Mission Accomplished” banners and such?
Again, I think that “McCain wants 100 years of war” is a mischaracterization; I’m sure it’s more accurate to say “McCain wants rainbows and ponies”. But without knowing what “winning” is, I think that saying “McCain would not support 100 years of war” is almost as bad a mischaracterization. I note that this could all be cleared up if at any time McCain had provided a defintion of “winning”.
I don’t know; he’s made it a campaign plank that we will not leave Iraq until the war is “won”, hasn’t he? I cannot believe that anyone would support that, but, going by his own words, he has and does. Naturally, that’s politics-speak; I’d really like something more substantive. Although I think you’re correct that he doesn’t expect it to take that long.
If asked the question as you propose, with the word “support” rather than “be fine with” or “want”, it really isn’t clear to me how he’d answer. As I brought up earlier, he’s also said that he’s fine with having U.S. troops (“maintaining a presence”) in a “very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” Due to political expediency (and sans truth serum), he’d have to say “no”.
What’s in his heart? It may be obvious that he doesn’t “want” war, but would he “support” it? I don’t know…I think there’s a decent chance he would.
Let’s go with this criterium. McCain voted Republican party line 90% of the time (the famous voted with Bush quote)
Obama voted Democratic party line 96% of the time
Although, of course, 80% of the populace thinks the country is on the “wrong track”. That track, of course, being dictated by the Republicans for the last 8 years. Doesn’t that indicate that Obama is more “president-worthy” than McCain in the eyes of a substantial majority of the populace?
Do I get a cookie for perpetuating this inanity?
I think we have sufficiently beaten the Palin book banning and McCain 100 years of war/occupation to death in several other topics, neither of which goes to McCain’s honor and integrity, so getting back on track here. . .
New Obama ad: Honor.
Well, there you go, if the Washington Post says so, that’s good enough for me.
We’ll find out in 54 days. 
No cookie, since you have made one factual error and committed one logical fallacy. The Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 2 years, so no, the Republicans have not dictated the track for the last 8. And just because most of the country thinks we’re on the wrong track doesn’t mean that any given Democrat is going to be picked as more “president-worthy” than any given Republican. And since the polls are just about even, the 80% figure could very well mean that voters are fed up with both parties, or that they are conflicted about how to get back on the right track.
Although I didn’t go to the trouble of identifying the logic flaws (thank you for that), I definitely recognize(d) that it contained flawed reasoning. Hence the self-referential nature of the “inanity” comment. (How uncharacteristically clever of me. ;))
I do wish this election had lived up to its early promise of a larger focus on issues and analysis (my “cookie” post and those it references being examples of statistics abuse for distractive purposes). Although, come to think of it, perhaps I’m projecting, misremembering the election thus far (e.g., the Rev. Wright spectacle, “sniper-gate”, etc.).
Well, as Bricker points out, I guess we have 54 days to see if it improves somewhat. Wouldn’t that be nice…
McCain says Obama didn’t call Palin a pig
Integrity is not a word used to describe a man who fathers lies because he doesn’t like what someone says.
And what’s up with McCain’s position on Future Combat Systems?
A man of integrity would would stake his position, and stick with it even when potential voters disagree with him. Suddenly backing the Airborne Laser just because Obama wants a strategic review of such systems smacks of reactionary politics rather than integrity.