PDA

View Full Version : 10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked


Dudeskey
04-23-2008, 11:24 AM
And let's not forget questions about McCain's collaboration with the North Vietnamese and his direct involvement in the deaths of dozens of his fellow sailors on the USS Forrestal because he wanted to "show off". [/sacasm] (for those that don't know it when they see it)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/18/114643/669/1010/498331


While the liberal blogosphere and media critics alike are fuming over the deplorable gotcha-fest that was the ABC Democratic debate Wednesday in Philadelphia, conservative talking heads are positively ecstatic. In the New York Times, David Brooks called the questions on lapel pins and the Weather Underground "excellent." The excreable Michelle Malkin snarked, "How dare they explore questions of character, truthfulness, and judgment?" And over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey offered "kudos to ABC News" while noting "John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included."

* Avenging Angel's diary :: ::
*

Which is exactly right. The so-called "maverick" John McCain has never been subjected to the inquisitorial equivalent of the rectal probes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton received last night. And given the media's on-going love affair with Mr. Straight Talk, he no doubt never will be.

But since the right-wing amen corner asked for an exploration of John McCain's "character, truthfulness, and judgment," the following represents a subset what an American media actually doing its job might ask of the Republican presidential nominee.

Here, then, are 10 debate questions John McCain will never be asked:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed", your "spiritual guide." Do you believe America's mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about "bomb bomb Iran?" If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don't your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?

On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan "unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn't your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America's national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?

You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance," a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, "'no, I don't." Why shouldn't the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over 38,000 dollars a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn't the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, "McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian." In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as "Episcopalian" in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News' August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you've said, "When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it." So what is your religion? And couldn't Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboaring ban?

You've said that "we can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we
have captured". And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted "no" on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn't it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn't it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and "would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers." Isn't it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn't it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"

Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then in December 2007, you admitted, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Shouldn't the American be worried about President McCain's ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn't the American reject out of hand your claim that "I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?"

Bronco Bob
04-23-2008, 11:29 AM
[QUOTE=Urinal_Cake;1955267]And let's not forget questions about McCain's collaboration with the North Vietnamese and his direct involvement in the deaths of dozens of his fellow sailors on the USS Forrestal because he wanted to "show off".

Where did you come up with these two pieces of goofiness?
Having been in the Navy myself, and having seen the video of
the Forrestal fire, how exactly was sitting in a plane that got
struck by a stray rocket and exploded John McCain's fault?
That's as nutty as blaming the office workers in the WTC for
the building collapsing.

Spider
04-23-2008, 11:31 AM
yeah he will never be asked those questions by the liberal media .Let the swift boating begin

Dudeskey
04-23-2008, 11:37 AM
[QUOTE=Urinal_Cake;1955267]And let's not forget questions about McCain's collaboration with the North Vietnamese and his direct involvement in the deaths of dozens of his fellow sailors on the USS Forrestal because he wanted to "show off".

Where did you come up with these two pieces of goofiness?
Having been in the Navy myself, and having seen the video of
the Forrestal fire, how exactly was sitting in a plane that got
struck by a stray rocket and exploded John McCain's fault?
That's as nutty as blaming the office workers in the WTC for
the building collapsing.

umm, that part was sarcasm, dude

Bronco Bob
04-23-2008, 11:40 AM
umm, that part was sarcasm, dude

One would hope.

Spider
04-23-2008, 11:43 AM
One would hope.

2 words for ya ....Swift boat .......

Spider
04-23-2008, 11:44 AM
It also happened against Walter Mondale ......whats good for the goose is good for the gander

spdirty
04-23-2008, 07:45 PM
Im voting for spider.

mhgaffney
04-23-2008, 08:36 PM
Too more wordz:

Willie Horton

footstepsfrom#27
04-23-2008, 09:55 PM
Nice list...should have included some questions about his shady dealings with the Keating Five and his cozy relationship with the telcom industry. McCain's just another empty suit standing in line to be the next corporate puppet waiting to do the bidding of his real masters, big business. He's GW Bush II with approaching senility.

alkemical
04-23-2008, 10:24 PM
the telecom issue pisses me off

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-24-2008, 01:09 AM
McCain's just another empty suit standing in line to be the next corporate puppet waiting to do the bidding of his real masters, big business. He's GW Bush II with approaching senility.

All qualities which should endear him to the same knuckle draggers who supported Bush.

jhat01
04-24-2008, 07:26 AM
All qualities which should endear him to the same knuckle draggers who supported Bush.

You think the two on the other side are any different? They're all the same.

alkemical
04-24-2008, 07:31 AM
You think the two on the other side are any different? They're all the same.

That's absolutely correct jhat01!

Now tell him what he's won!

http://www.makeyougohmm.com/images/2007/priceisright-35.jpg

You've won the position of being one of the few who really see it that way, and now you will be ridiculed by each side since they are too busy IN the conflict - which doesn't really exist!

Congratulations on your prize!

Spider
04-24-2008, 08:29 AM
You've won the position of being one of the few who really see it that way, and now you will be ridiculed by each side since they are too busy IN the conflict - which doesn't really exist!

Congratulations on your prize!

well it is nice to have a hobby

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-24-2008, 08:30 AM
You think the two on the other side are any different? They're all the same.

Really?

Does that mean you can show us evidence that their positions on the most important issues, i.e., Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc., are identical to McCain's?

alkemical
04-24-2008, 08:37 AM
Really?

Does that mean you can show us evidence that their positions on the most important issues, i.e., Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc., are identical to McCain's?


Let's see:

They vote themselves pay raises

They vote FOR legislation the chips away at civil rights

should i continue...or is that enough for starters?

jhat01
04-24-2008, 10:38 AM
Really?

Does that mean you can show us evidence that their positions on the most important issues, i.e., Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc., are identical to McCain's?

Very quickly, I'll start with Iraq:

McCain says we'll have an unspecified number of troops in Iraq "indefinitely."

Obama plans on keeping an unspecified number of troops in or around Iraq for an unspecified time.

Clinton says she will keep "small" elite strike forces in Iraq to provide "security" for an unspecified time.

These people are all the same. Obama and Clinton have the same policy, which involve "best case" scenarios of pulling out 1 or 2 brigades a month. So explain how having elite strike teams in Iraq for an unspecified time is any different than having several brigades in Iraq for an unspecified time? What happens when one of these teams are hit? Do we send more troops to help them?

alkemical
04-24-2008, 10:39 AM
Very quickly, I'll start with Iraq:

McCain says we'll have an unspecified number of troops in Iraq "indefinitely."

Obama plans on keeping an unspecified number of troops in or around Iraq for an unspecified time.

Clinton says she will keep "small" elite strike forces in Iraq to provide "security" for an unspecified time.

These people are all the same. Obama and Clinton have the same policy, which involve "best case" scenarios of pulling out 1 or 2 brigades a month. So explain how having elite strike teams in Iraq for an unspecified time is any different than having several brigades in Iraq for an unspecified time? What happens when one of these teams are hit? Do we send more troops to help them?

No, they are "advisors" then.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-24-2008, 05:13 PM
Let's see:

They vote themselves pay raises

They vote FOR legislation the chips away at civil rights

should i continue...or is that enough for starters?

I asked about Iraq, the economy, and health care.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-24-2008, 05:16 PM
Very quickly, I'll start with Iraq:

McCain says we'll have an unspecified number of troops in Iraq "indefinitely."

Obama plans on keeping an unspecified number of troops in or around Iraq for an unspecified time.

Clinton says she will keep "small" elite strike forces in Iraq to provide "security" for an unspecified time.

These people are all the same. Obama and Clinton have the same policy, which involve "best case" scenarios of pulling out 1 or 2 brigades a month. So explain how having elite strike teams in Iraq for an unspecified time is any different than having several brigades in Iraq for an unspecified time? What happens when one of these teams are hit? Do we send more troops to help them?

So where does McCain say anything about pulling out one or two brigades a month? Where do either Clinton or Obama say anything about staying for 100 years?

And you didn't answer about the economy and health care.

jhat01
04-24-2008, 08:11 PM
Let's go one point at a time, Mr. Deflection. I pointed out the similarities in plain english....

"So explain how having elite strike teams in Iraq for an unspecified time is any different than having several brigades in Iraq for an unspecified time?"

jhat01
04-24-2008, 08:16 PM
Oh, and save your Republican/Bush hate speeches too... I think McCain is as big a fake as the other two.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-24-2008, 08:32 PM
Let's go one point at a time, Mr. Deflection. I pointed out the similarities in plain english....

"So explain how having elite strike teams in Iraq for an unspecified time is any different than having several brigades in Iraq for an unspecified time?"

But you didn't say there were "similarities" in your original post - you said there was no difference.

And you still haven't answered re: the economy and health care (and you call me "Mr. Deflection?" What a f@*king joke! ROFL! )

jhat01
04-25-2008, 06:34 AM
**** you. You think I'm going to waste any more time on you? Unspecified numbers of troops in Iraq for an unspecified time IS THE SAME. Maybe the unspecified number of "elite strike force" troops can handle al-Sadr all by themselves. What I should have said is since you and Hillary both have vaginas, you are the same.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-25-2008, 08:07 AM
**** you. You think I'm going to waste any more time on you? Unspecified numbers of troops in Iraq for an unspecified time IS THE SAME. Maybe the unspecified number of "elite strike force" troops can handle al-Sadr all by themselves.

(In best Tony Montana voice)

**** me?

No - **** you.

First you said "you think the two on the other side are any different? They're all the same." Direct quote.

Then, when I called you on your bullsh*t, you backpedaled and said there were "similarities."

What I should have said is since you and Hillary both have vaginas, you are the same.

Says the backpedaling punk. Ha!

jhat01
04-25-2008, 10:09 AM
OK, so you agree that their plans for Iraq are the same? Troops in Iraq is troops in Iraq, whether it's 2000, or 100,000. Similar and "the same" is playing the semantics game and you know it. Talk to the point of their Iraq plans, then we'll move on to the others. But you can't can you? Just post a cartoon and be done with it **** bird.

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2008, 10:45 AM
I don' t know about Hillary, but Obama is not going to keep troops in Iraq. He may have referenced a phased withdrawal over time since that is what military commanders have stated would have to occur in order to ensure the safety of US troops but that's not the same thing at all. And where did he vote in favor of legislation that damaged civil rights?

jhat01
04-25-2008, 10:54 AM
Here's a direct quote from Obama:

"What I said is I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take advantage of--or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in the region. That's very different from saying we're going to have a permanent occupation in Iraq."

I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but to me it sounds like there will be a permanent presence there. But whatever...My point, is the end result of this fiasco in Iraq will mean a troop presence. Why would he leave a "strike force" in or around Iraq? To put al-Sadr and his 6000 man militia down?

alkemical
04-25-2008, 11:54 AM
I don' t know about Hillary, but Obama is not going to keep troops in Iraq. He may have referenced a phased withdrawal over time since that is what military commanders have stated would have to occur in order to ensure the safety of US troops but that's not the same thing at all. And where did he vote in favor of legislation that damaged civil rights?

he voted for reauthorization of the patriot act.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Obama votedNO on December 16, 2005, on the Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act (HR 3199).

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-25-2008, 06:39 PM
I don' t know about Hillary, but Obama is not going to keep troops in Iraq. He may have referenced a phased withdrawal over time since that is what military commanders have stated would have to occur in order to ensure the safety of US troops but that's not the same thing at all. And where did he vote in favor of legislation that damaged civil rights?

But according to jhad01, there is "no difference" between Obama and McSame re: their respective positions on Iraq. ;)

jhat01
04-25-2008, 06:59 PM
But according to jhad01, there is "no difference" between Obama and McSame re: their respective positions on Iraq. ;)

Still haven't acknowledged that troops are troops, no matter how many. I can see the Obama's "strike force" now..."We're pinned down, taking heavy fire!" Response from the re-enforcements..."We're leaving from Kuwait now, be there as soon as we can." Oh, and as usual, you skipped over my response to Footsteps, you know, the one with the Obama quote.

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2008, 07:02 PM
he voted for reauthorization of the patriot act.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Obama votedNO on December 16, 2005, on the Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act (HR 3199).
Fair enough. Is it your opinion he did so because he's anti-civil rights? Or do you think like many/most in Congress he was caught on the horns of a dilemna, trying on the one hand to balance the rights of US citizens and on the other hand to provide adequate protection in a time of war? Perhaps he, like most of us, didn't realize the lengths that Bush would go to in violating the constitution and running roughshod over law in order to carry out his spying program. In any case, characterizing him as voting to damage civil rights is a dishonest approach to the fact of that vote, don't you think? Had he voted against the Act, he'd then be classified as "soft" on terrorism. Not a win/win situation is it?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
04-25-2008, 07:18 PM
Still haven't acknowledged that troops are troops, no matter how many. I can see the Obama's "strike force" now..."We're pinned down, taking heavy fire!" Response from the re-enforcements..."We're leaving from Kuwait now, be there as soon as we can." Oh, and as usual, you skipped over my response to Footsteps, you know, the one with the Obama quote.

This is still a far cry from "we'll be in Iraq for 100 years" (which is the point you keep skipping over in your retreat from your original statement, i.e., that there was "no difference" between McCain and the other two re: Iraq.)

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2008, 07:18 PM
Here's a direct quote from Obama:

"What I said is I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take advantage of--or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in the region. That's very different from saying we're going to have a permanent occupation in Iraq."

I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but to me it sounds like there will be a permanent presence there. But whatever...My point, is the end result of this fiasco in Iraq will mean a troop presence. Why would he leave a "strike force" in or around Iraq? To put al-Sadr and his 6000 man militia down?
Why not simply use Google to find the answer...if in fact you're really looking for one? Here it is...complete context along with a detailed plan he submitted complete with dates for withdrawal, BEFORE McCain ever brought this issue up:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040003

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2008, 07:33 PM
Here's the PDF text of the bill introduced by Obama to the US Senate in November of last year calling for specific timetables and withdrawals. The most relevant portions begin on page 7:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s433is.txt.pdf

Note that he also spelled out in detail why he'd leave forces in the region. Obviously the claim that he's ambiguously called for an undefined presence and an indiscriminate time frame is false. It's clear he's talking about counter terrorist activiites on an infinitely more specialized and restricted scale than what we now have; a full scale attempted occupation by US forces.

jhat01
04-25-2008, 09:05 PM
I know exactly what he said...In the end, whenever the end will be, maybe 100 years maybe for the rest of time we will have a troop presence in Iraq. I think McCain is as big a liar as the rest of them. That was my meaning of "same" That seems to get lost on people like LABF. It is my belief that we (meaning US forces) will be in Iraq for a very, very long time. I must interpret this plan differently than you do:

(g) Retention of Certain Forces in Iraq-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the requirement for the redeployment of the Armed Forces under subsection (a) and subject to the provisions of this subsection, personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States may be in Iraq after the completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section for the following purposes:

(A) To protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.

(B) To conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations.

(C) To provide training for Iraqi security forces.

(D) To conduct the routine functions of the Office of Defense Attache.

To me, that sounds like a pretty permanent situation.

jhat01
04-25-2008, 09:35 PM
This is still a far cry from "we'll be in Iraq for 100 years" (which is the point you keep skipping over in your retreat from your original statement, i.e., that there was "no difference" between McCain and the other two re: Iraq.)

You know exactly what I meant when I said they're all the same. Obviously, their policies aren't exactly the same, and I was referencing the group as "politicians." You know this...That being said, McCain, Obama, Hillary, I, or you, have know fuucking idea how long we will be in Iraq. My point, once more, is that when it's all said and done, we will not be "pulling out" all of our troops. There will be a troop presence there indefinately.

As far as the economy and health care goes, I think the end results will still be the same. I break that down to how they would effect me. I don't think a gallon of milk will be cheaper when any of them get into office, and I don't think insurance premiums will be any lower when any of them take office. The bottom line imo is we're going where we're going, and the prez ain't really driving the bus anyways.

Does that clear up my "same" comment? I hope so, because I can't believe I'm typing this on a Friday night.

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2008, 09:58 PM
I know exactly what he said...In the end, whenever the end will be, maybe 100 years maybe for the rest of time we will have a troop presence in Iraq. I think McCain is as big a liar as the rest of them. That was my meaning of "same" That seems to get lost on people like LABF. It is my belief that we (meaning US forces) will be in Iraq for a very, very long time. I must interpret this plan differently than you do:

(g) Retention of Certain Forces in Iraq-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the requirement for the redeployment of the Armed Forces under subsection (a) and subject to the provisions of this subsection, personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States may be in Iraq after the completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section for the following purposes:

(A) To protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.

(B) To conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations.

(C) To provide training for Iraqi security forces.

(D) To conduct the routine functions of the Office of Defense Attache.

To me, that sounds like a pretty permanent situation.
Read the rest of the document, including the timetables for withdrawal he proposed. Obama made it abundantly clear that he was talking about a very small and specialized force much like forces we maintain in non war zones where the US has a strategic operational presence with special forces or military advisors but is nowhere near on a war footing. So if he keeps a 1,000 man expeditionary force based there to assist in training Iraqi's, protect US diplomats, stage forward area counter terrorism operations...etc...that is light years from where we are now. I'm pretty sure the US probably maintains quite a few such forces throughout the world that we never hear about. Comparing this to McCain's 100 year S. Korea/Japan/Western Europe type military presence is ridiculous, so let's not do so.

Odysseus
04-25-2008, 11:02 PM
All qualities which should endear him to the same knuckle draggers who supported Bush.

McCain is a kinder and gentler knuckle dragger. Knuckle dragger light. Only one calorie.

jhat01
04-26-2008, 06:50 AM
Read the rest of the document, including the timetables for withdrawal he proposed. Obama made it abundantly clear that he was talking about a very small and specialized force much like forces we maintain in non war zones where the US has a strategic operational presence with special forces or military advisors but is nowhere near on a war footing. So if he keeps a 1,000 man expeditionary force based there to assist in training Iraqi's, protect US diplomats, stage forward area counter terrorism operations...etc...that is light years from where we are now. I'm pretty sure the US probably maintains quite a few such forces throughout the world that we never hear about. Comparing this to McCain's 100 year S. Korea/Japan/Western Europe type military presence is ridiculous, so let's not do so.

For the record, I think your a little light on the number, and there's no way that the violence there will allow such a small force. Is the violence just going to stop? al-Sadr and the rest will be happy that the occupiers are gone, and be cool with a couple thousand? But nevertheless, we probably won't be able to see what happens, because we won't win.

alkemical
04-26-2008, 10:39 AM
Fair enough. Is it your opinion he did so because he's anti-civil rights? Or do you think like many/most in Congress he was caught on the horns of a dilemna, trying on the one hand to balance the rights of US citizens and on the other hand to provide adequate protection in a time of war? Perhaps he, like most of us, didn't realize the lengths that Bush would go to in violating the constitution and running roughshod over law in order to carry out his spying program. In any case, characterizing him as voting to damage civil rights is a dishonest approach to the fact of that vote, don't you think? Had he voted against the Act, he'd then be classified as "soft" on terrorism. Not a win/win situation is it?

Dude, can you read:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Obama votedNO on December 16, 2005, on the Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act (HR 3199).


He RE-authorized it. **** him.