This guy wants to be president?

jmick

jmick

Active Member
Anyone else find it amusing that McCain once again botched his info. This time on the Anbar Awakening and crediting that with the Surge; when in fact the Anbar Awakening actually began in Sept of 2006. Even better, the fact that he claimed it was a matter of history
Also find it amusing that Bush, McCain and Obama are all basically on the same page when it comes to a timetable for troop withdrawal for Iraq. McCain went from 100 years to 1.3 years in no time...anything to win the election I guess.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2701898
Anyone else find it amusing that McCain once again botched his info. This time on the Anbar Awakening and crediting that with the Surge; when in fact the Anbar Awakening actually began in Sept of 2006. Even better, the fact that he claimed it was a matter of history
Also find it amusing that Bush, McCain and Obama are all basically on the same page when it comes to a timetable for troop withdrawal for Iraq. McCain went from 100 years to 1.3 years in no time...anything to win the election I guess.
The whole anbar thing is what triggered the support for the surge. Without the surge what happened in Anbar wouldn't have been sustainable so it's kinda a chicken and the egg argument.
Bush McCain and the Iraqis favor timetable triggered by events on the ground. Obama just wants a timetable. He wants troops out ASAP so he can start sending them to Darfur> Those people are worse than the insurgents in Iraq ever dreamed of.
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2702057
That is a blatantly inaccurate statement. Anything to trash your opponent I guess.
Did he not say he'd keep troops in Iraq for the next hudred years if needed? McCain also said something to the effect that he's against any kind of timetable because it will send a signal of defeat to our enemies? Now, he's been trapped into a corner by Bush, Obama and Maliki and has conceded that a timetable is feasable.
Please, I don't need to slame McCain, he does it to himself with his frequent gaffes and flip flops.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2701898
Anyone else find it amusing that McCain once again botched his info. This time on the Anbar Awakening and crediting that with the Surge; when in fact the Anbar Awakening actually began in Sept of 2006. Even better, the fact that he claimed it was a matter of history
Also find it amusing that Bush, McCain and Obama are all basically on the same page when it comes to a timetable for troop withdrawal for Iraq. McCain went from 100 years to 1.3 years in no time...anything to win the election I guess.
Their is a big difference between we'll do whatever it takes to win, and what you posted there.
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702089
Did he not say he'd keep troops in Iraq for the next hudred years if needed? McCain also said something to the effect that he's against any kind of timetable because it will send a signal of defeat to our enemies? Now, he's been trapped into a corner by Bush, Obama and Maliki and has conceded that a timetable is feasable.
Please, I don't need to slame McCain, he does it to himself with his frequent gaffes and flip flops.
lol, hmm, at least he hasn't said 4 different things about his "views" in iraq.
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2702103
Their is a big difference between we'll do whatever it takes to win, and what you posted there.
lol, hmm, at least he has said 4 different things about his "views" in iraq.

McCain July 17: This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed," McCain said on his campaign bus. "And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed," and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.
McCain July 26th:"I think it's a pretty good timetable (Obama's), as we should (have our) horizons for withdrawal,'' McCain said in an interview Friday with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. ''
You're right, he has said different things...vastly different things
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702118
McCain July 17: This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed," McCain said on his campaign bus. "And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed," and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.
McCain July 26th:"I think it's a pretty good timetable (Obama's), as we should (have our) horizons for withdrawal,'' McCain said in an interview Friday with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. ''
You're right, he has said different things...vastly different things

Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are not this ignorant to see what he is and has been saying.
In Iraq 100 years if NEED BE.
What Obama wants to do could reverse things.
Withdrawl needs to be done based on conditions in Iraq not a timetable.
That is the basis of his campaign and has not changed.....Same thing still.......
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2702122
Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are not this ignorant to see what he is and has been saying.
In Iraq 100 years if NEED BE.
What Obama wants to do could reverse things.
Withdrawl needs to be done based on conditions in Iraq not a timetable.
That is the basis of his campaign and has not changed.....Same thing still.......
If that's the case then why did he endorse Obama's timetable by saying "it's a pretty good timetable." Could it be that he is pandering to the masses, because most Americans want us out of Iraq? If he was a man of character he never would have said that and would have said a timetable is not an option, we will base our pull out on conditions. That's not what he said and you are the one who is ignorant if you believe otherwise.
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Love how when ever something is posted that exposes McCain....Reefraff, Stdreb27, Darthtang and Journey always jump on it and always post something very similar...I'm begining to think that you guys are alter egos of one crazy old republican

Wonder when Journey will chime in??
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702196
Love how when ever something is posted that exposes McCain....Reefraff, Stdreb27, Darthtang and Journey always jump on it and always post something very similar...I'm begining to think that you guys are alter egos of one crazy old republican

Wonder when Journey will chime in??
I'm not the one posting misrepresentations
Which you clearly did.
McLaim is a moron. Don't get me wrong, but one thing he has been consistent on is his stance on the war in Iraq. If you want to dog him, why not talk about his "green" ideas, or his almost defection to the dems or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts. Those are some serious issues. But his war stance vs Obama's. That is just laughable.
BTW none of you Obama coolaid drinkers, have yet to answer why a "surge" is needed in Afghanistan but it didn't work in Iraq?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702196
Love how when ever something is posted that exposes McCain....Reefraff, Stdreb27, Darthtang and Journey always jump on it and always post something very similar...I'm begining to think that you guys are alter egos of one crazy old republican

Wonder when Journey will chime in??

Perhaps it is because we take a little time to research the facts rather than parroting the latest spin from the left wing blogs. I guess most of us learn to fact check as we get older.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702178
If that's the case then why did he endorse Obama's timetable by saying "it's a pretty good timetable." Could it be that he is pandering to the masses, because most Americans want us out of Iraq? If he was a man of character he never would have said that and would have said a timetable is not an option, we will base our pull out on conditions. That's not what he said and you are the one who is ignorant if you believe otherwise.
How is saying it looks like a good timetable but it must be events based endorsing Obamas cut n Run plan?
Obama and most of the Democrats have been saying we need to pull troops out to force Iraqs to step up for the last year. It is Obama who has changed his position from "I will end this war in 18 months" to "I think we can be out by 2010 but that will be subject to events on the ground"
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702089
Did he not say he'd keep troops in Iraq for the next hudred years if needed? ...
What he actually said, if facts are actually important to you, is the following in response to how long we would be in Iraq:
"Maybe 100," McCain answered. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
McCain insisted the United States "will win the war in Iraq and win it fairly soon," allowing U.S. troops to withdraw to military bases....
Heaven forbid, of course, if we actually allow the truth to enter into a debate regarding politics.
I find it tragic that Obama supporters will not even discuss what is on Obama's own webpage, yet they will parrot far-left talking points that are factually easily provable lies. Is this what "Hope" and "Change" look like in the 21st century?
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2702307
How is saying it looks like a good timetable but it must be events based endorsing Obamas cut n Run plan?
Obama and most of the Democrats have been saying we need to pull troops out to force Iraqs to step up for the last year. It is Obama who has changed his position from "I will end this war in 18 months" to "I think we can be out by 2010 but that will be subject to events on the ground"
18 months CHANGED to 2010??? You must be a product of the new math.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2702373
18 months CHANGED to 2010??? You must be a product of the new math.


Obama's words, not mine. Recently his positions are such a moving target its hard to figure out where he stands. He WAS saying we needed to be out in 18 months for force the Iraqis to step up. Now he is saying he THINKS we can be out sometime in 2010 but it depends on conditions. Then he turns around again and says no, we have a timetable.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2702378
Obama's words, not mine. Recently his positions are such a moving target its hard to figure out where he stands. He WAS saying we needed to be out in 18 months for force the Iraqis to step up. Now he is saying he THINKS we can be out sometime in 2010 but it depends on conditions. Then he turns around again and says no, we have a timetable.
umm, just a little sidenote, 18 months from now, would be 2010.
If you want to ride on Bush's coattails that is fine. But at least give he guy his due. I mean, when EVERYONE else was running around saying oh the war is lost, and stuff bush stuck to his guns. and Well, it is looking pretty good.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2702178
If that's the case then why did he endorse Obama's timetable by saying "it's a pretty good timetable." Could it be that he is pandering to the masses, because most Americans want us out of Iraq? If he was a man of character he never would have said that and would have said a timetable is not an option, we will base our pull out on conditions. That's not what he said and you are the one who is ignorant if you believe otherwise.
pull out based off of conditions is essentially a timetable....not a definitive set in stone time table but still a time table. Please answer how a surge in afghanistan will help if it didn't in Iraq. we answered your questions now it is your turn. But I won't hold my breath. Jmick you fail miserably in these debates. I remember a time when you started one on McCain and then cut and run when challenged with the true facts opposite to what you had posted. Why do you even bother?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2702373
18 months CHANGED to 2010??? You must be a product of the new math.


Crimzy, I know you are a lawyer and only good with numbers when it comes time to bill the client, but come on....this is simple math......lol.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2702394
umm, just a little sidenote, 18 months from now, would be 2010.
.
Oh I understand 18 months is 2010, The date/time isn't part of the point I am making. I am just repeating Obamas words. Forget the dates and such. He went from "I WILL END THIS WAR IN X MONTHS to force the Iraqis to step up" to "I THINK we can be out by X date BUT THAT DEPENDS ON THE CONDITIONS".
So now instead of forcing the Iraqis hands he has changed his position to move toward the Bush position of we will step down as they step up. Barack W Obusha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top