Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2008

Obama Would Still Oppose Surge

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:45 am



In another display of his revered powers of “judgment,” Barack Obama says, if he could have a do-over, he’d still oppose the surge.

You can read the reasoning from Obama the Master Wordsmith at the link, which is to Hot Air. I’ll tease Obama’s explanation with the observation that it’s not only less than compelling, it’s also . . . less than coherent. Allahpundit observes:

A better answer would have been, “No, because Iraqi security isn’t worth any more American lives.” Which is not to be confused with the correct answer, “No, because I wouldn’t have been nominated if I did.”

Heh.

159 Responses to “Obama Would Still Oppose Surge”

  1. Doubling down on deuces. Double HEH!

    Bel Aire (cc1676)

  2. What the heck did he say? This guy’s supposed to be educated. I can’t make “hide nor tail” of that answer. We, meaning all of us, need to get more unscripted questions asked of Mr Obama. This will show the world what a nightmare this guy is when it comes answering tough questions or making tough decisions.

    Richard Daugherty (b039e2)

  3. AllahPundit’s “better answer” would still have been a wrong one.

    Iraq’s oil reserves, strategic location, and fledgling democracy (which could quickly flip into a much more formidable training camp for anti-western terrorists than the Taliban ever dreamed of) all create American interests that, sadly, could be worth going to war over. That’s the geopolitical reality — unless you’re willing to drop the United States into an energy-starved, isolated and isolationist ruin of a country in which memories of the Great Depression of the 1930s would seem like the Good Old Days. Indeed, our present interests in Iraq are far more compelling than those which drew America into World War I, and if we were to permit our enemies in Iraq to snatch victory from the jaws of their defeat, we would just as certainly be drawn into some sort of further, and likely grimmer, armed conflict in the Middle East within a few years, as certainly as America’s eventual entry into World War II was inevitable.

    Our national interests don’t stop at the Atlantic and Pacific shores of the U.S., and haven’t for well over a century.

    Beldar (10302e)

  4. Judgment we can trust to change for the hopeful.

    His reason is disgusting, placing politics in front of security.

    JD (75f5c3)

  5. What it comes down to is that anything Pres. Bush would be for, the Obamanation viscerally would be against even if it was successful (see Pres Bush in favor of drill here, drill now, Obamanation against), except if he’s dragged kicking and screaming into tolerating such Bush policy (FISA). Indeed, another reason the Obamanation may still be against it is because anything that gives Pres. Bush credit for changing strategies and tactics and commanders and firing Don Rumsfeld, is anathema to the dems and to the Obamanation, despite his claims of post partisanship.
    The supposed post partisan candidate, thus reveals, that he is highly partisan and can’t stand the fact that Pres Bush was successful. He wants to take credit for the success while still pushing defeatism, cut and run. His statements that it wasn’t the surge but the ‘change in politics’ in Iraq, cuts against the false dem meme for the past sixteen months that there has been no change in politics and thus the surge is a failure. How this man could be the presumptive nominee is astonishing, but his party did nominate Dukakis and McGovern, so not surprising it would nominate first Affirmative Action candidate for Presidency.

    eaglewingz08 (98291e)

  6. Democrats – opposing what works since 1968!

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  7. The Uber Leftists of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party have Nobama by the short hairs…literally. He is quite simply afraid or, he a fervent believer and will do, say and behave any way necessary to get the Presidency and overturn this great country on its head!!

    Sue (4d3ef7)

  8. There is a fundamental discontinuity today between Democrats, who want high gas prices to discourage driving, and who are anti-war in almost any situation, and who believe that people should ride the bus to work and who even seem to believe that there are too many people and the earth would be happier without most of us, and Republicans who think we can go on with our lives relying on American ingenuity to solve these problems. Some years ago, we in California had a governor, often called “Governor Moonbeam,” who said “Small is beautiful.” He left us with toilets that need to be flushed twice since the tanks are too small, and crowded freeways because he wanted to force people into public transit. California infrastructure was the best in the nation in 1956 when I moved here. It has been all downhill since then, although the spending in Sacramento goes up every year.

    Jerry Brown is planning to run for governor again and it seems appropriate in the Age of Obama.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  9. What other “enormous improvements” would Sen. Obama prefer this country not have?

    Wesson (f6c982)

  10. How about Nuclear Power.
    Baracks Energy Policy

    Thomas (b7fe33)

  11. The hit on Bush was that he was too stubborn to bend to new realities …
    What is revolting here is that in Bush’s case it at least revolved around a conception of our national interest, and here the “idee fixe” is the fetish, as mentioned prior, to be against whatever Bush was for, right or wrong.

    Political expediency a dangerous thing to be stubborn over.

    File this under the meme:
    “Obama is the new Bush.”
    http://no-bama.blogspot.com/

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  12. A few points of note on this comment. That is one of those questions that is a total political double edged sword. If Obama had said he was wrong, we would all be pointing that out. Now, instead, we are pointing out his intransigence. Also, let’s remember that President Bush got hammered for his lack of contrition for mistakes. I won’t hold my breath for the media to make the same demands now. Here is my analysis…

    http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-obama-on-nightline-analysis.html

    Michael Volpe (c55984)

  13. Obama: the “Nigel Tufnel of Politics”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN5SCRvhMtk

    “These go to 11!”

    MarkJ (42fe5b)

  14. The more I hear him talk, the more I’m convinced that he peaked as a city councilman.

    htom (412a17)

  15. He was never a city councilman. His first political position was state senator and then U.S. Senator.

    Michael Volpe (c55984)

  16. Now, see, I can learn from the internet. That explains a few things.

    htom (412a17)

  17. I got this in an email. I think this is a great counter point to Obama, and also to the NYTimes one sidedness pointed out in another thread.

    “This satirical news report comes to us today courtesy of ScrappleFace:

    Republican presidential nominee John McCain today for the first time said he can now support a timeline to reduce the American presence in Iraq, specifically advocating the withdrawal from Iraq of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama, and several battalions of U.S. news anchors and reporters.

    “It’s time to bring them home,” said Sen. McCain at a news conference attended by a journalism intern from the Des Moines Register. “The surge has worked, and it’s time to redeploy.”

    Sen. McCain said bringing Sen. Obama home would help to ensure that “people in the U.S., who desperately need media attention, will get the help they deserve.”

    “Our mainstream media forces are stretched too thin,” he said. “If news should break here in the homeland, who’s going to cover it? We’re vulnerable.””

    If you can’t laugh at the media, who can you laugh at?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  18. Obama is still evolving folks. Give him time. He will soon come round. The more things change the more they are the same.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  19. How dare anyone question The One?

    “Barack Obama – Praise Be Unto Him – is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life”

    That he even permits the unwashed, gun-owning, religion-clinging masses to say his name aloud is a miracle.

    Kneel before your Messiah and his Co-Messiah. They are your new gods.

    Horatio (a549f7)

  20. It’s amazing, ain’t it? Barry Teleprompter credits the troops — briefly — and then moves on to tribal leaders and even obliquely, Suqtada al-Madr. Botox Brain Pelosi credits the IRANIANS.

    Someone has apparently placed a chip in the brains of Democrats that will cause a cerebral hemorrhage if they verbalize giving Bush or Petraeus due credit for the success of the surge.

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  21. Love2008 incredibly wrote: Obama is still evolving folks. 😮

    Some folks in Japan think so too. Not for sensitive viewers. Click at work at your own risk.

    Let me interject at this point that I am a black man.

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  22. Of course he would still oppose the surge.

    If you think something is a mistake from day one and it turns out to be, why throw more lives and money at it?

    Just because we now have the appearance of a successful surge in Iraq doesn’t justify going there in the first place.

    Oiram (983921)

  23. “Obama is still evolving folks. Give him time.”

    This is what Iran, Syria and North Korea love to hear. Venezuela… you know, all the countries who hate democracy. But the Bushitlers walk hand-in-hand right off a cliff, joined together by a cup of koolaid just to prove they haven’t made a mistake. Unreal.

    Barry Teleprompter. Too sweet.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  24. “Obama Would Still Oppose Surge”

    And he’s there today enjoying the fruits of our labor.. American troops. This guy is absolute filth.

    And Obots… the more they learn, the less they learn. It’s like a group that’s oblivious to the smell and smoke of a raging fire.

    Past Bush supporters often cite his mistakes in policy and the bungle work he’s done on the border. But Obots? Oblivious to any and every piece of news about someone who preens well.

    Whoever wrote about Chauncey Gardner and Truman as templates were right on the money.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  25. Wow and a large number of those “Fruits of our labor” are applauding him on his visit. Does that make our American Troops Obots?

    Oiram (983921)

  26. I want to hear the whole interview but Marc Ambinder’s excerpts suggest Obama thinks the Iraqis won this war and it’s possible they could have won it sooner if only the US had pulled out earlier. Are liberals so invested in anti-war pacifism that now they need the US to lose every war?

    DRJ (297528)

  27. Does that make our American Troops Obots?

    According to John Kerry, they didn’t study hard enough, had to join the army and are stuck in Iraq.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  28. “Just because we now have the appearance of a successful surge in Iraq…”

    Uh, it’s not an appearance, pal. It’s a genuine sucess – put all the flypaper you want on it, it’s not going to change the reality. Even your Messiah is now saying it – why can’t you?

    Dmac (416471)

  29. If it’s a success, and even Maliki is suggesting we withdrawal. Why does your messiah (Bush) feel the need to call it “Horizon withdrawal” instead of what it is withdrawal timetable?

    Oiram (983921)

  30. The republican definition of Victory in Iraq is that we will leave when the Surge works except we can never leave because then the Surge won’t work. The republicans do not have a plan to leave Iraq, they have a plan to stay forever in Iraq.

    Oiram (983921)

  31. Your English is often incomprehensible at times. I’ll try to respond to your question, if there is one.

    What, exactly, did Maliki suggest regarding a timetable? Are you suggesting he wants a firm withdrawal date, with no flexibility? Please provide sources to back up your claim here, if that’s what you’re attempting to state.

    Dmac (416471)

  32. “The republican definition of Victory in Iraq is that we will leave when the Surge works except we can never leave because then the Surge won’t work. The republicans do not have a plan to leave Iraq, they have a plan to stay forever in Iraq.”

    Sources please, to back up this claim as well.

    Dmac (416471)

  33. Well, for one thing the Republican candidate McCane saying we will be in Iraq for 100 years. Sounds like never to me.

    Oiram (983921)

  34. That’s a pretty top source I would say eh Dmac?

    Oiram (983921)

  35. …McCane saying we will be in Iraq for 100 years.

    Great misquote Oiram, you must be a journalism graduate with honors.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  36. Yeah right with honors, that’s why I’m sitting on my butt here.

    He did say words to that effect Perfect Sense. My ears are old, but not that old.

    Oiram (983921)

  37. How do you all expect to pay for a “No time table for witdrawel” war?

    At some point the collection calls are going to be a little overwhelming for the U.S. to handle don’t you think?

    Unless your plan is to go to war with the owners of our debt.

    Scarry.

    Oiram (983921)

  38. You can tell I didn’t graduate with honors from a journalism the way I spelled withdrawal above. At least I know how to say it.

    Oiram (983921)

  39. Oiram wrote: Wow and a large number of those “Fruits of our labor” are applauding him on his visit. Does that make our American Troops Obots?

    Puhleeze. Did you think somebody would throw eggs and tomatoes when the possible future CIC was on stage? Members of the military skew Republican, but that doesn’t mean you can’t fill a large room with enthusiastic Dems on a base. However, consider this: according to one published report, the visitor who got the loudest cheers of all visitors when he showed up in Afghanistan was…wait for it…Bill O’Reilly.

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  40. So our troops were applauding Obama because they fear he may be there Commander In Chief?

    Our troops have more guts than that, and you know that Smithee.

    Oiram (983921)

  41. So our troops were applauding Obama because they fear he may be there Commander In Chief?

    Not out of “fear”, you twit. It’s called “politeness”. To a sitting Senator. I imagine there were very few who were there voluntarily, but instead had to be sent there by officers.

    Just like Obama had to be ordered to Iraq by his political handlers.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  42. Well it’s good to know that Republican troops are polite. *Twit* 🙁

    So let me get this straight. Your not giving Obama credit for having the guts to go in front of American Soldiers in Iraq? I mean they’re supposed to be gung ho about Bush plan…… or rather lack there of.

    hmmmm… o.k.

    Oiram (983921)

  43. Oiram wrote: He did say words to that effect Perfect Sense. My ears are old, but not that old.

    Your ears are fine. Your problem is whom you trust without verifying.

    From the Columbia Journalism Review’s website, April 1, 2008 (bold mine):

    Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.

    But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.

    (snip)

    It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long. That’s a very different thing. As he says, we’ve had troops in South Korea for over fifty years, but few people think that means we’re still fighting the Korean War.

    Nevertheless, back in February, Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.”

    And, on a separate occasion: “(McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another hundred years of war in Iraq.”

    Since then, some conservatives have drawn attention to the distortion, and Obama’s been a bit more careful with his language. Today, for instance, he said: “We can’t afford to stay in Iraq, like John McCain said, for another hundred years.” It’s technically true that McCain said that, but Obama’s clear goal in phrasing it that way was to imply, falsely, that McCain wants the war to continue for that long. In other words, he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it. Progress, of a kind…

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  44. I mean they’re supposed to be gung ho about Bush plan…… or rather lack there of.

    Just because Bush hasn’t sat you down personally and gone over the fine tooth details of everything with you doesn’t mean he and his staff have not planned.

    However, as any student of the trade will tell you, “Plans are the first casualty in combat”.

    Well it’s good to know that Republican troops are polite. *Twit*

    Considering they can be thrown in confinement for not being polite to an elected Federal official (and can get yelled at for being impolite to ANY civilian), it’s not surprising.

    As for the “twit”, I’m no longer in the military and you aren’t an elected official.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  45. Rest of the Story by Major Gen. (ret.) Buckman on ABC News’ Martha Raddatz covering McCain’s recent visit to Iraq. She polled SIXTY GIs on whom they would be voting for nexxt November for Prez…. 54 said Mccain, 3 Obama and 2 Hillary. How did it show up on the ABC news state side?
    The video shows Raddatz interviewing only FIVE soldiers of which 3 would vote for Urkel and 2 for Shrillary. NO MENTION of the 54 who would choose Mccain. How’s that for spin and media-effing bias???? Google it for full story. Can we agree that Obama gets more BJs from press than even Billy Clinton ever did and BusHitler is cause of everything bad in the world and Pelosi/Reid everything good and would be better if Bush was not obstructing Congress? jajajajaja.

    madmax333 (904016)

  46. Oiram wrote: So let me get this straight. Your not giving Obama credit for having the guts to go in front of American Soldiers in Iraq? I mean they’re supposed to be gung ho about Bush plan……

    “Guts?” I don’t know if you’ve been around many military types, but unlike Bush-haters, they aren’t prone to stripping down to pink nightgowns and screaming like banshees.

    Honest to God, Oiram — what did you think might have happened if they REALLY didn’t want to see him besides just not showing up? You think there would have been some fragging threat?

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  47. And if any of them saluted Obama, the light must have been bad.

    Before you think I’m insulting Barry, let me remind you that Obama holds absolutely zero rank in the TOE. A Boot Private still in civvies with his first slider being digested has more military rank and experience than your hero.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  48. Nice work #43

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  49. It’s funny how Mcain’s, Bush and cheeney never mentioned keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. Perhaps needing to fudge the truth to Americans in order to get re-elected was a priority.

    Oiram (983921)

  50. #47
    Getting shot down in Vietnam does not convince me that Mcain has what it takes to be president.

    Oiram (983921)

  51. Kudos to Obama for having the guts…..none the less.

    I didn’t see it, was he wearing the huge armor jacket that Mcain was wearing when he went and declared all is well? Of course he had our troops (not Iraqi’s) and our helicopters covering him.

    Not to mention that the Market place McCain visited was bombed the very next day after coverage dissapeared.

    But that was before the surge.

    So it’s working now, I forgot. We leave troops ala Korea.

    Is that enough?

    Can we leave the same amount of troops, like Korea, Germany, Japan etc.

    Who is going to pay for this?

    Oiram (983921)

  52. It’s funny how Mcain’s, Bush and cheeney never mentioned keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.

    It’s funny how Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower never mentioned keeping troops in Germany, japan and South Korea for 100 years, either, but that hasn’t turned out bad at all, has it?

    Getting shot down in Vietnam does not convince me that Mcain has what it takes to be president.

    Nor would it be for me, if that was all he had going for him. What does Obama have in his background that shows the same amount of character that McCain showed during his SIX YEARS of being a POW? 6 years ago, Obama was a Chicago slum lord with aspirations to being a US Senator someday. (It took getting all of his Democratic rivals in the primary kicked off the ballot through judicial fiat to get his name on the general ballot.)

    What does Obama have to match McCain’s personal experience in anything at all?

    Seriously, what positive things has Obama actually accomplished (not claimed credit for after the fact)?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  53. “It’s funny how Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower never mentioned keeping troops in Germany, japan and South Korea for 100 years, either, but that hasn’t turned out bad at all, has it?”

    Of course those were countries that declared war on us……but that’s a whole other argument eh Drum?

    The only accomplishment of Obama’s that needs to be listed here is that he was against this unnecessary war from day one. Good enough for me. Proabbly good enough for the country.

    Oiram (983921)

  54. “Probably” I mean …….. (misspelled above) sorry apparently I didn’t get passed the 5th grade *twit*

    Oiram (983921)

  55. Of course those were countries that declared war on us……but that’s a whole other argument eh Drum?

    One that you will lose, since Iraq started this war.

    apparently I didn’t get passed the 5th grade

    Nor did you get past it.

    The only accomplishment of Obama’s that needs to be listed here is that he was against this unnecessary war from day one.

    As above, we didn’t start this war, so apparently Obama is of the opinion that we should not even bother to defend our own interests any more.

    Not surprising given how anti-American his “posse” has been, but it’s unfortunate that you consider it a virtue to hate one’s country.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  56. Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama’s policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn’t go to Iraq today, it wouldn’t be safe. — Senator Joe Liebermann, I-CT, 7/20/2008

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  57. No, sorry I didn’t say you didn’t get passed the 5th grade. I was making fun of myself. Either you or one of your conservative comrades accused me of that today. If not you then I apologize for the misunderstanding Drum.

    You did call me a twit though.

    Oiram (983921)

  58. When did Iraq officially declare war on us?

    Did I miss something?

    Oiram (983921)

  59. That’s great, when you guys are up against the wall when it comes to Obama’s virtues…… you throw up the “he hates America card”

    What else you got? “Anti Christ”??

    “Muslim”

    “Hussein is his middle name, he must be related to Saddam”

    Real intelligent guys.

    Oiram (983921)

  60. When did Iraq officially declare war on us?

    They didn’t “officially” declare war on anyone, they just invaded a neighboring country. Like you going over and kicking in your neighbor’s door without bothering to send a certified letter first.

    Do I really have to go through this step-by-step again? You ran away halfway through when I tried to show you the facts yesterday.

    Wanna try again? If not, withdraw your inaccurate comment.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  61. No dude, go back and read the thread…… I bit remember?

    Drum – “They didn’t “officially” declare war on anyone, they just invaded a neighboring country. Like you going over and kicking in your neighbor’s door without bothering to send a certified letter first.”

    So our current Iraq invasion was a sequel to the gulf war? Your smarter than that Drum.

    As soon as you find those weapons of mass destruction you let me know.

    Oiram (983921)

  62. And for the record (go back and read the thread).

    You still haven’t told me deffinetively how the Dems magically made gas go up according to your graphs.

    Before you say “Controlling Legislation” ……….show me the magic legislation.

    Oiram (983921)

  63. That’s great, when you guys are up against the wall when it comes to Obama’s virtues…… you throw up the “he hates America card”

    What else you got? “Anti Christ”??

    “Muslim”

    “Hussein is his middle name, he must be related to Saddam”

    I don’t actually know whether he hates America personally, but he sure hangs out with a whole lot of people who hate this country, and “a man is known by the company he keeps”. Just ask your grandmother what she would think of a man whose closest associates have been

    * a man who bombed several public buildings (including the Pentagon)
    * a man who claimed that the US Government invented AIDS in order to kill off black people
    * a woman who could find nothing to be proud about the US in the last quarter century
    * a man who defrauded the pension fund of hundreds of thousands of public employees

    Yet this is the same man who you just claimed that the only reason you want him in as President is that he is against the United States defending its own interests.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  64. Sorry about the “off topic” #62, but I had to get it off my chest.

    Oiram (983921)

  65. Before you say “Controlling Legislation” ……….show me the magic legislation.

    You’re missing the point. It isn’t that they wrote a law requiring gas prices to shoot up (although their new tax is certainly a problem they created), it’s that they WON’T put out the legislation to open up the new production fields, which would increase supplies and (through the magic of Supply and Demand) lower prices.

    I can’t show you what they DON’T do.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  66. You know I don’t like what Rev. John Hagee has said in the past, but I don’t hold McCain in contempt for going to his church.

    Oiram (983921)

  67. #53 Of course those were countries that declared war on us……

    South Korea never declared war on the USA, neither did North Korea for that matter. Yet we are still there 55 years later keeping the peace.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  68. You know I don’t like what Rev. John Hagee has said in the past, but I don’t hold McCain in contempt for going to his church.

    If McCain had attended Hagee’s church for an hour a week for 20 years without protest, I’d hold it against him. Likewise, Obama and Wright.

    Anon (a2601e)

  69. So our current Iraq invasion was a sequel to the gulf war?

    Yes. I can even walk you through the step-by-step process. Care to bet?

    As soon as you find those weapons of mass destruction you let me know.

    You need to reread those history books. First, the war was described as “preemptive” by those who seemed to think that this was a new process. (I didn’t agree with that description, but I was not invited to comment.)

    Second, it was not up to us to prove that he had them. By those UNSC Resolutions, Saddam was required to be actively cooperative. We KNOW he had them, because he used them, including against his own citizens. He was threatening to use them against the Israelis during Desert Shield. He never adequately explained what happened to the stock he was proven to have, and was actively obstructing the attempts to discover the facts on the ground.

    So which way do you want to argue it? By using the facts, or by me disproving your already-disproven talking points again and again?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  70. #66 – Oiram,
    As many of your “facts” are fabrications, you are not quite ready for prime time. FYI, McCain was endorsed by John Hagee. McCain did not attend Hagee’s church services.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  71. When did Iraq officially declare war on us?

    Did I miss something?

    Comment by Oiram — 7/22/2008 @ 4:27 pm

    When did Serbia declare war on us? Iraq signed a truce with us during the first Gulf War. They violated the terms of the truce. Repeatedly. For years. End of story as far as I’m concerned.

    Anon (a2601e)

  72. Eh say what you will, McCain accepted those endorsements.

    Once again you show me Drum how well you know how to only expose the facts and or misplaced facts that help your cause.

    Keep it up, your going to need all your wits to beat Obama………………
    ……….

    In 2012.

    Gotta go for now.

    Have a wonderful day Neo Cons.

    Oiram (983921)

  73. Getting shot down in Vietnam does not convince me that Mcain has what it takes to be president.

    Comment by Oiram — 7/22/2008 @ 3:52 pm

    Exactly what is it about Obama that convinces you he does?

    Anon (a2601e)

  74. Once again you show me Drum how well you know how to only expose the facts and or misplaced facts that help your cause.

    Running away again.

    You coward.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  75. Eh say what you will, McCain accepted those endorsements.

    Again, get your facts right. McCain has repudiated Hagee’s endorsement.

    Gotta go for now.

    If you can’t stand the heat . . .

    Anon (a2601e)

  76. Oiram is just full of made up crap today, isn’t he? Ever notice that when we criticize Obama and other Democrats, we do so on a factual basis but the trolls who show up to defend him have this unending need to make up falsehoods, and write a complete fantasy life about the last decade or two?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Iraq signed a truce with us during the first Gulf War. They violated the terms of the truce.

    The UN becomes “us” at which juncture? It wasn’t up to us to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction.

    We covertly supplied Saddam during the bloody and futile Iraq-Iraq war which was condemned by the United Nations.

    steve (985677)

  78. The guy is intellectually challenged, no question about it. But at least he tries to argue a point (but not very well) without resorting to insults.

    Dmac (416471)

  79. The surge worked. Yeah! Halleluyah! Can we go home now?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  80. We covertly supplied Saddam during the bloody and futile Iraq-Iraq war which was condemned by the United Nations.

    No, we didn’t. The most complicated piece of equipment we sold Saddam was the equivalent of a traffic helicopter. The deadliest thing we sold him was the biological samples that the CDC sells to any major university.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  81. “The UN becomes “us” at which juncture?”

    If we got out of the UN altogether, it would collapse immediately – we provide almost 25% of their total funding per annum.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/un_reform/paying_dues.html

    So in effect, we are the UN, even though they hate us for it, and do almost everything possible to obstruct our military and condemning us forever in their inane speeches.

    Dmac (416471)

  82. The most complicated piece of equipment we sold Saddam was the equivalent of a traffic helicopter.

    We removed Iraq from the list of terror-sponsors to permit the transfer of dual-use technology to aid in the war. Iraq was supplied through false fronts and third country arms sales that flouted UN injunctions.

    steve (985677)

  83. steve, the point remains that the US supplied a trivial amount of war material to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq was armed by France and Warsaw Pact nations.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  84. “The UN becomes “us” at which juncture?”

    The United States was a “Member State” as used in Resolutions 678, 686, 687 (paragraph 24, 25, 27, 28 & 33), and others.

    We were a party to the Conditional Cease Fire.

    He was firing at our planes.

    He tried to kill one of our Presidents.

    He was paying bonuses to known terrorists who killed Americans.

    It was the official policy of the United States (as written during Clinton’s second term) to enact regime change in Iraq.

    Too bad that you are ignoring the much vaunted “international law” when it goes against what you want to believe…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  85. Iraq was supplied through false fronts and third country arms sales that flouted UN injunctions.

    More disproved talking points. Why can’t you guys come up with anything that is actually true?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  86. FYI – I don’t run, I have a life beyond Paternico.

    I’m still waiting Drum………..

    You said The democrat controlled congress created High Gas prices today.

    Show me the legislation please.

    DMAC,

    Thanks for the half assed compliment.

    I am intellectually challenged, but I know deception when I see it.

    I recommend doing what I’m doing here guys…….. go make some comments on left leaning blog sites (if you have the courage)

    Obama 2008

    Oiram (4ea516)

  87. Show me the legislation please.

    Asked and answered. Next question.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  88. Number # please

    Oiram (4ea516)

  89. “The UN becomes “us” at which juncture? It wasn’t up to us to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction.”

    While I applaud your attitude towards the necessity of enforcing UN resolutions, we (the US) declared our cease-fire after Iraq declared it would abide by the UN’s initial resolution and only because it did. Now, I realize it’s fun for both Bush and the UN to talk about the actions of the “coalition” and our allies, but there was one particular member of that coalition that Iraq was concerned with, the US.

    We covertly supplied Saddam during the bloody and futile Iraq-Iraq war which was condemned by the United Nations.

    Yeah, in fact I hear a rumor that Rumsfeld and Saddam once shook hands….

    Sorry to be flippant, but I take it as an insult to my intelligence that I wouldn’t know about that. Do you honestly think there’s a single political junkie at this point debating this topic who doesn’t know that point?

    I’m not sure entirely what it has to do with my argument, but I assume no Iraq debate would complete without it, so what I will say is that when mess up, I generally consider myself as being under a greater duty to make amends – same with Iraq. (Also, for the record, the weapons we sold them during the 80s were a fraction of what the Russians and French did; and our help for the Iraqis at the time really wasn’t that covert.)

    Anon (a2601e)

  90. go make some comments on left leaning blog sites (if you have the courage)

    Left wing sites don’t allow dissenting voices to be heard, unless it is someone who is false-fronting as a “former Republican who sees the light about those Rethuglican neocons who work with the Jews to control everything”.

    They are just as averse to facts and logic as you are.

    You deliberately choose to ignore the truth. That is your own fault. Your own doing. Nobody to blame but yourself. (Time for you to blame Bush now.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  91. #85
    If you are so sure about that argument, why didnt Bush make that case before invading Iraq? All these details you pointed out would never have been enough to get him the support he needed to declare war. If I remember clearly, it was about the WMDs which was alleged that hussein was developing. Even though those claims had not been verified by UN inspectors who were asking for more time to complete their investigation. Going to Iraq was not about vendetta and all those little conspiracy issues. It was about a more dangerous threat.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  92. Congress Does Not Set Gas Prices

    Despite what Drum implies, Congress has little or nothing to do with setting the price of gasoline. Gas prices rise and fall with fluctuations in supply and demand. Prices go up when the supply decreases or the demand increases. Prices fall when supply goes up or demand goes down. There are those who believe that oil companies are manipulating supply, but if so that’s the doing of oil-company executives, not Democratic senators or House members, some of whom in fact are calling for yet another investigation of oil-company practices.

    U.S. policy can have some effect on global oil markets – wars in major oil-producing nations tend to reduce the oil supply, at least in the short-run – but foreign policy is primarily the province of the executive, not the legislative, branch.

    Oiram (4ea516)

  93. Comment #91 is completely wrong.

    I voted for Hillary my friend.

    I commented and commented argued and argued and was allowed to comment and argue.

    I was called a Neo Con, war monger, chicken hawk, Bushie…….. you freakin name it on many left wing sites.

    Please don’t cloud things up here drum.

    Oiram (4ea516)

  94. Oiram – glad to see you’re still around, what is it about Obama that convinces you he has what it takes to be President?

    Anon (a2601e)

  95. President Bush has made “blaming Bush” all too easy Drum. It’s easy to call a spade a spade.

    Oiram (4ea516)

  96. It’s good to be back Anon.

    Just know that I don’t run. I live, but I don’t run.

    As to what I like about Obama.

    List is too long as opposed to McCain’s list.

    Here you go

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-url-search-national

    Oiram (4ea516)

  97. Life happens folks.

    See you all tomorrow.

    Drum, I’m still waiting on Congress secret gas raising legislation.

    Oiram (4ea516)

  98. Here you go

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-url-search-national

    Oh come on, don’t make me register.

    Just concisely, what are the chief points?

    Anon (a2601e)

  99. With respect to the original topic, Obama has been lying in his responses to the arguments about the surge. Obama has claimed that the reduction in violence was the result of political events that took place at the same time as the surge, implying that his “plan” of pressuring the Iraqi government for political compromises while denying them add’l military support would have had the same result. This is an intentional lie on Obama’s part – as he lists political progress that occurred because of the surge itself and our military’s direct efforts at addressing sectarian violence.

    But this is not the only important lesson we are getting of Obama’s character. A common refrain about the BDS crowd is that President Bush won’t admit to mistakes. But Obama refuses to admit that his opposition to the surge was a mistake. He shows even greater arrogance than Bush is accused of.

    Oiram, Congress is intentionally hindering any attempt to increase the supply of petroleum in this country.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  100. Drum, I’m still waiting on Congress secret gas raising legislation.

    This is now the THIRD time. Just like Catvomit and his ilk, you cannot provide something that does not exist. Even I cannot do so. But that is not what I am claiming.

    Attend me, grasshopper.

    The law exists that closes off ANWR, despite the wishes of 80+% of the nation and 90+% of Alaskans. There are similar laws that prohibit the use of OCS oil fields and the oil shale in Colorado (several times the size of the Saudi’s largest field). Those laws have been on the books since the late 70s (Carter’s era).

    Congress would have to pass MORE laws to overturn those prohibitions.

    They. Have. Not. Done. So.

    It is not their legislation that is drying up supply, it is their lack of legislation that is keeping supply dried up, forcing the US to now import more than 70% of its oil from overseas.

    70%.

    There is only one way to bring that number down. Open domestic production. Congress refuses to do so.

    THAT is how the Democrats are responsible for those prices that have spiked more than 85% in a mere twenty months. By sitting on their well-fed asses and letting people like you blame someone who isn’t rersponsible for writing legislation.

    D’ya geddit now, gumdrop?

    Bush did what he could, by voiding the previous Executive Order prohibiting the use of some domestic oil fields. The merest speculation of that act caused prices to set a two-day record for falling prices.

    All it would take to get prices to drop even more (maybe back to the levels when the Republicans still ran Congress) is San Fran Nan and Real Estate Reid to actually follow suit.

    They won’t.

    Why not ask them why they refuse to act?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  101. Here is one blast from the past link. Bush made the WMD which he claimed Iraq possessed his major case for war.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  102. love2008, so now we are playing non sequitur?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  103. #103
    What are you talking about?
    Read the comments made by Drum about the justification for this war in #85. I am just trying to set the records straight.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  104. “…go make some comments on left leaning blog sites…”

    Oh, how I’ve tried over the years – but in every case (Kos, DU, HuffPo, etc.), I’ve been called every name in the book, then had my comments deleted…every time.

    The Left Blogosphere – they’re the most tolerant sites out there (as long as you agree with every thing they say).

    Dmac (416471)

  105. love2008, for the record I do think that was a mistake on Bush’s part. He did talk a little bit about the other aspects, but not to the extent he talked about WMDs. – I’ll be perfectly honest with you, while I think WMDs was a justification for it, I didn’t particularly care about WMDs even in 2003. My support for it was a closer to the other reasons that Tony Blair was a lot more eloquent in emphasizing.

    Anon (a2601e)

  106. A quote from that speech:

    “Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.”

    Continuing:

    “In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

    We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons.

    ***

    And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.”

    We knew he had them. It was his responsibility to allow internatiopnal inspectoirs in to determine the location of those weapons and any other equipmnent designed to create more.

    HE FAILED TO COMPLY.

    Those were conditions that were specifically set out at the end of the first war. Bush pointed THAT out too, several times, and you missed every one of them.

    Continuing:

    “Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.”

    You can have your own opinion. You do not get your own facts.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  107. love2008, you were not setting the record “straight”. You were trying to use one single speech to recast all of the Bush administration’s discussion. Ignoring all of the speeches, press conferences and state of the union speech that occurred before and after.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. The more you spin it the more it spins you and the more dizzy you get.
    “Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.”
    Confronting the threat posed by Iraq, how has that led to “winning the war on terror”? How can anyone in all honesty make that kind of false argument? What threat did Iraq pose to America? (That is apart from schizophrenia.)
    Talking about the success of the “surge” without looking at the bigger picture of the Iraqi invasion and whether it was justified does injustice to the real issue here. So, no one is playing a non sequitur game with you SPQR.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  109. It would be grand if liberals like love700AD could honestly tell us why Urkel should be POTUS? Maybe because a black prez would be neato and the world would rejoice? I guess that’s why England chooses black PMs? As does France black Moooooslim leaders? At least Chrissie “I squat to pee” Matthews reveals what a total asswipe he is by suggesting on leno that anyone over fifty who doesn’t vote obamnation is racist and should look at Obama through color blind eyes of a child. And don’t forget the big AGE DIFFERENCE between McCain and Obama. Forget qualifications and agenda, Chrissie gets an erection around Urkel and the world should follow suit in worshipping the great psuedomessiah.

    madmax333 (9171b7)

  110. Confronting the threat posed by Iraq, how has that led to “winning the war on terror”?

    It has eliminated a safe harbor that international terrorists had in Baghdad, and eliminated a source of money, training and sanctuary they had.

    It also acts like a Roach Motel for terrorists. (They come in to fight and stay to die.)

    We have freed two nations, more than 50 million people, that you would rather see left alone in misery and religious despotism? Then say so plainly. Admit that you believe those people don’t deserve (or as one wag I remember commented, “can’t handle”) freedom and democracy.

    Talking about the success of the “surge” without looking at the bigger picture of the Iraqi invasion and whether it was justified does injustice to the real issue here.

    What warped sense of reality do you have to possess to claim that the was wasn’t “justified”? I have given the justification, legally, morally and pragmatically, and you ignore it all to repeat that nonsense.

    How can you expect anyone to take you seriously after saying something that stupid?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  111. “Talking about the success of the “surge” without looking at the bigger picture of the Iraqi invasion and whether it was justified does injustice to the real issue here. So, no one is playing a non sequitur game with you SPQR.

    Uh, you just did. The success of the surge as a policy is a separate issue from the justification of the war. What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts away from an issue that Obama is trying to duck.

    Nice demonstration of my exact point. Logic is obviously not your strong suit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  112. #106
    And these reasons are?
    BTW I am relieved that at least one person on this thread admits that on Iraq, viz: WMD as justification for the invasion, Bush was wrong. That is a good place to start with.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  113. No, love2008, Bush was not “wrong” on WMD as one of the justifications of the Iraq war. And its a stupid place to “start” on this thread – which is not about the justification to go to war.

    Even if we did not find the WMD programs that worse case intel suggested we could find, we did definitively end any Iraqi WMD programs and put an end to the dancing with the disarmement and disclosure dance Iraq was engaged in.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Maybe Mr Wad, we are killing al qaeda and other islamomutant scum that gathers there and thus avoiding larger numbers from diverting to USA or having money and time to plan operations abroad? Of course libtards like love don’t want terrorist privacy rights violated by US intercepting their communications. Or “torturing” them with panties, fake menstrual bllod, waterboarding etc.? The pussy retards on the left hate America first and want her enemies to prevail and that’s why libs worship a lurch Kerry, clinton or Obama. Look at the circle of friends around Obama? Which ones are not effing scoundrels of the first order? And Love would have us bow down to Obama and recognize his greatness? Bwahhahahaha- asses everywhere. hope …change…camel dung par excellence.

    madmax333 (9171b7)

  115. I am relieved that at least one person on this thread admits that on Iraq, viz: WMD as justification for the invasion, Bush was wrong.

    So far, you are the only one asserting this. So your relief that someone is doing it is like my relief that I am busy slapping you around like a misbehaving ho.

    Could you possibly BE any more clueless?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  116. Another favorite mantra of Bush bashers was that he would not “listen to the generals” on Iraq. This is a reference to Shinseki’s supposed “advice” that it would take 300,000 troops in the Iraq operation. ( I put “advice” in quotes because Shinseki’s comments were not really advice, but his attempt to avoid responsibility for planning the operation as is clear from memoirs like Gen. Franks’ ).

    But now we have Obama ignoring the advice of Gen. Petraeus and continuing to ignore it.

    Another “principle” hastily abandoned by the BDS crowd.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  117. BTW I am relieved that at least one person on this thread admits that on Iraq, viz: WMD as justification for the invasion, Bush was wrong.

    Yeah, where we may get into an argument, though, is that just because I think he was wrong, it doesn’t mean I think he lied.

    And these reasons are?

    He violated the initial truce. For those truces to mean anything in the future the current ones have to be enforced. He was offering bounties to families of suicide bombers. The main thing stopping him from renewing his persecution of the Kurds and the Shia were our enforcement of the no-fly zones (which planes he had fun shooting at occasionally), so if we wanted to keep that from happening again, we either had to continue this forever or get rid of him. Since he wouldn’t spend the money from oil-for-food program in the ways it was intended, the only way to stop the humanitarian problems in Iraq (if we didn’t get rid of him) were to end the embargo and allow him to become powerful again. And – the all-round Anon justification for most of our recent wars: if you’re a dictator, we’re justified in toppling you. Doesn’t necessarily mean we should, doesn’t mean we can, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t better things to do with our time, but we’re justified in doing it.

    Anon (a2601e)

  118. Drum#111 and SPQR#112
    It is your style to blab away about someone not making good logic. nonsense. What you are attempting to do is to decide how this issue should be followed, by isolating the whole point of the surge as if America went to Iraq to have a “surge”. The surge became necessary because the war was turning into a major disaster. Who cares about your surge? Is that how history will judge this whole fiasco? This issue is the failure of the bush regime. Trying to make it look as if it is not, makes you all look brain washed and psychotic. You SPQR are bigotted, warped and incapable of honest and objective discourse.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  119. Sorry if I’m departing from you guys, but to clarify here – where I am agreeing with love2008 is that in the months leading up to Iraq, Bush decided to make WMDs the main thing he emphasized. He did bring up other stuff, and Tony Blair was a lot more eloquent in emphasizing the other stuff in the UK, but he decided to settle on WMDs as the main thing and I think it was a bad move on his part.

    Anon (a2601e)

  120. SPQR are bigoted

    Honest question – what has SPQR said here that’s bigoted?

    Anon (a2601e)

  121. love2008, is there an english translation available for your comment?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  122. Who cares about your surge?

    Now that it has worked, you’re suddenly “who cares about it?”?

    Talk about shifting goalposts…

    What you are attempting to do is to decide how this issue should be followed, by isolating the whole point of the surge as if America went to Iraq to have a “surge”.

    That’s like saying “the Allies went to Europe to have a Normandy Invasion”. The surge is a response to conditions on the ground, and if Obama had gotten his way last year, he would have been committing suicide (not just political) to wander around, because he would not be safe.

    Because Bush and his generals were right, and Obama was clearly in the wrong, you have to pretend to not care.

    If it hadn’t worked you’d be lauding the failure to the skies…

    Care to try to answer a direct question, with a simple yes/no answer?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  123. #116
    So far, you are the only one asserting this. So your relief that someone is doing it is like my relief that I am busy slapping you around like a misbehaving ho.

    Could you possibly BE any more clueless?
    Watch your language drumwaster. Dont sound like a retarded, brain dead fool, you are not.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  124. Then start making statements that actually accord with reality.

    Keep dodging them, and all you prove is that you are trolling, and deserve no better.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  125. We shot down a civilian airplane, killing all 290 passengers and crew including 66 children, during the Iran-Iraq war. So let’s cut out the shit that we were not on Saddam’s side back then.

    nk (a4be1f)

  126. We shot down a civilian airplane, killing all 290 passengers and crew including 66 children, during the Iran-Iraq war. So let’s cut out the shit that we were not on Saddam’s side back then.

    Comment by nk — 7/22/2008 @ 8:27 pm

    1. I don’t see anybody arguing here we weren’t on Saddam’s side.

    2. Last time I checked, the shooting was an accident not intentional. Sure, it doesn’t make any difference to the 290 who died, but it is misleading to cite that without referencing the other part.

    Anon (a2601e)

  127. #125
    You mean statements that accord with your reality? It is your way. First paint the person as one misguided trolling agent who does not know the facts . But it wont work this time. I am not going to agree with any nonsense you throw out here. I have given you a link to what Bush said was his basis for going to war. Most of that has been proven wrong by the facts on the ground. Even Anon in comment #120 agrees that Bush was wrong by making WMD the real motivation for the war. That was his main justification for the war. Yes there were other issues but not as serious as nuclear threat. Denying that little part of history makes you out as either stupid or a liar. And I know you are neither.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  128. I’m sorry, Anon, but the fact that we were on Saddam’s side is being soft-pedaled a lot. And, personally, my only problem is that we should be honest about it.

    nk (a4be1f)

  129. We shot down a civilian airplane, killing all 290 passengers and crew including 66 children, during the Iran-Iraq war.

    A civilian aircraft well away from civilian air traffic corridors, ignoring all attempts at communication and directly on a line with an American warship, just after a similar flight profile resulted in many sailors dead the year before. (I lost a friend during that particular attack. We had attended OS “A” School at the same time.)

    That attack – the deadliest Navy tragedy since the Forrestal fire, was by Saddam’s air force, I might point out.

    However, your famed allergy to truth is obviously still flaring up.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  130. That attack – the deadliest Navy tragedy since the Forrestal fire, was by Saddam’s air force, I might point out.

    So we shot down an Iranian civilian airplane, from a country who was at war with Saddam. Ok.

    Look, Timewaster. I know what happened. Unlike you, I am being honest about it.

    nk (a4be1f)

  131. I have given you a link to what Bush said was his basis for going to war.

    You have given a single link to a single speech, which doesn’t say what you claim it says.

    That was his main justification for the war.

    “Main” is an opinion, and it was also undisputed, then or now. (Have you seen Senator Rockefeller’s report that says that intel supported everything Bush said about his reasons for going to war?

    But, what the hell, Rockefeller is a Republican, isn’t he, so he can be safely ignored as a biased sou… a Democrat, you say? A Democrat who admits that Bush didn’t lie? Rare as hen’s teeth.

    Even Anon in comment #120 agrees that Bush was wrong by making WMD the real motivation for the war.

    That isn’t what he said. What that comment actually says was “in the months leading up to Iraq, Bush decided to make WMDs the main thing he emphasized. He did bring up other stuff, and Tony Blair was a lot more eloquent in emphasizing the other stuff in the UK, but he decided to settle on WMDs as the main thing and I think it was a bad move on his part.”

    He “thinks” that it was a bad move on Bush’s part to let the bumper sticker chant crowd define WMD as the main reason to invade Iraq. I even agree with him, because it is always a bad idea to let the other guy define the rules. But he does not say Bush was “wrong”, just that he chose a subjectively defined less-than-optimal solution. (Like going for the layup to tie instead of the 3-pointer to win – more difficult, but worth the effort.)

    The words are different, and you are misquoting to say that he was saying something he wasn’t. (I’m being charitable with the word “misquoting”.)

    Yes there were other issues but not as serious as nuclear threat.

    So WMD == “nuclear”? You are WOEFULLY misinformed. This might explain many of your errors…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  132. Oh, shoot! Timewaster is not dishonest. He’s ignorant. He thinks it was an Iraqi civilian airplane.

    nk (a4be1f)

  133. NK,

    Please clarify something for me. Is it your conclusion that the USS Vincennes’ shooting of the Iranian airliner was an intentional act in support of Iraqi interests in the Iran-Iraq War? This BBC story doesn’t support that conclusion.

    DRJ (297528)

  134. So we shot down an Iranian civilian airplane, from a country who was ALSO at war with the United States.

    Fixed that for you, since you are so big on “the facts”.

    Apparently only one or two of them…

    I know what happened, too. I knew guys on both ships, and even served on the Stark after she came out of the yards (when she went to Gitmo for training). I even know what was being discussed by the guys who pull the triggers on those ships.

    And that “civilian” airliner was NOT on the standard traffic corridors and was on an attack profile. The Iranians and the US had already engaged in a shooting spat just a few weeks earlier (Operation Preying Mantis, in case you care about “the facts”), and the Vincennes had arrived to protect the Samuel B Roberts, which had hit a mine in April.

    It was the Vincennes that shot down the aircraft.

    Tell us more of your facts. I need the laugh.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  135. DRJ,

    No, not at all. I believed then and I still believe now that we were fumbling around in a fight we had no idea how to fight. That we were playing with guns and when you play with guns long enough somebody is going to get hurt.

    nk (a4be1f)

  136. Who cares about your surge? Is that how history will judge this whole fiasco?

    Well, yes. It is. History looks at outcomes, and it balances costs against other historical events. History will not find this to be a fiasco.

    Pablo (99243e)

  137. Even Anon in comment #120 agrees that Bush was wrong by making WMD the real motivation for the war.

    So, is your problem with the full facts, or just the spin?

    Pablo (99243e)

  138. He thinks it was an Iraqi civilian airplane.

    So you can’t find anything wrong with my memory, and now you’re just making shit up.

    You moron, I was talking about Saddam’s attack on the USS Stark.

    You claim to be an attorney, and you can’t understand simple English. Color me shocked. Real testament to your profession. (Better be sure not to follow those ambulances too closely…)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  139. Timewaster,

    You are my subsitute for stepping out for a cigarette. Thank you for helping me cut down on my smoking.

    nk (a4be1f)

  140. But I am sad to say that Drumwaster is the Antabuse to Patterico’s alcohol.

    nk (a4be1f)

  141. Thank you for helping me cut down on my smoking.

    You should really lay off the pills, though. (Not the little blue ones, though; even you are entitled to have something to show for all that lotion…)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  142. Re-enforcing the Empty Suit meme, is the complete lack of a brain.
    How stupid are we going to be in November?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  143. nk, I find the assertion that our shooting-down of the Iranian airliner had anything to do with the US intervening on behalf of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War ridiculous too. The US had naval units in the Gulf at that time because of Iranian skirmishing in the Gulf to pressure its regional neighbors via threats to oil transport from the area.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  144. #131
    Look, Timewaster. I know what happened. Unlike you, I am being honest about it
    Spot on! Honesty is the issue here. People dont want to be honest about what they know is the truth. We play politics with the truth. Rather than accept the fact that this whole thing was a complete mess, we lie, we equivocate and misrepresent the facts, just to avoid facing the reality that on Iraq we were wrong.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  145. Rather than accept the fact that this whole thing was a complete mess

    This is not only a purely subjective statement (opinion-based) being pushed as “the Truth” (with Capitals Letters), it isn’t even accurate by the standards of the anti-war crowd. It is also extremely hypocritical of you to assert that your opinion is “the truth”, but that the facts (which don’t support that opinion) are being “spun”, instead of simply stated.

    And you accuse ME of being untruthful?

    And that Matlock-wannabe you’re quoting isn’t talking about the war, he was claiming to know “what really happened” about the shootdown of that Iranian airliner, despite what the facts actually say.

    So you’re using an untruthful quote about one subject as proof of your inaccurate opinions on another subject entirely.

    Almost a liberal Hat Trick. All that you missed was to blame Bush for your errors.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  146. #146
    As long as you continue to claim that the reason for the Iraqi invasion was not about the WMDs that Bush alleged were there, I will continue to say you are a liar. Bush’s major case for invading Iraq and removing Hussein was that, qoute:
    After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
    There is more.
    Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
    As long as you continue to try to refute this fact I will continue to say you are dishonest and untruthful. Read that whole speech and other speeches he made while making his case for war and tell me in all honesty, putting aside partisanship, that his major motivation was not fear that Iraq was working towards nuclear capabilities. That was his case and not even you and your otiose attempts to change history can change that.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  147. Bush’s major case for invading Iraq and removing Hussein was that, qoute:

    It was neither his “major”, nor his only, case for invading.

    I’ve given several other reasons, based on the facts and you deliberately choose to ignore them.

    Even your own link proves you wrong. (When you can actually be bothered to provide one, rather than pulling alleged quotes out of your ass thin air, that is…)

    And you call me the liar?

    Bush said repeatedly that Saddam was also providing support to terrorist organizations. The AUMF (here is a link to the pdf file) lists the entire history, from the invasion of Kuwait through his repeated flouting of UNSC Resolutions, through his support for terrorism, and including his continued search for WMD (which you have apparently proven yourself incapable of defining).

    You can only claim that Bush was focused laser-like on WMD by cherry-picking comments out of context, pretending that was all that was said on the matter, and ignoring the overwhelming collection of data that proves otherwise.

    It was the anti-war crowd (that can’t understand anything that doesn’t fit well into a repetitive chant or doesn’t fit onto a bumper sticker) that locked in on WMD, and ignored or denied the rest of it.

    I can show you the SOTU speech, where he spells it out, mentioning WMD as only a portion of the reason.

    I have just shown you the AUMF that spelled out all of the other reasons.

    I can show you a link to all of the UNSC Resolutions that condemn his ongoing support for terrorist groups.

    Show me one single report that says that WMD were the only reason we went in, and I will quit calling you a liar, moving instead to merely “mistaken”.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

    That was his case and not even you and your otiose attempts to change history can change that.

    I’m not changing history. I’m giving links to the history as it occurred. I’m not cherry-picking events and sentences to warp the meaning enough in a failed attempt to prove something that was then, and is now, demonstrably FALSE.

    And Senator Rockefeller’s recent Senate report says that Bush even got it right. (Better take that sentence in small doses so you don’t choke on it.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  148. Hey Gum drop’s student. It’s not just Democrats that don’t want to open up anwr. Intelligent Republicans are hesitant as well. Maine was one of those in fact way back when.

    And what is opening the Arctic shelf going to do but prolong our dependence on non renewable energy.

    We’re peaking now Drum, our addiction supply is about to be cut off, if not this generation then the next. Time to figure out alternatives now.
    Opening anwr gives car companies a good excuse to wheel out their ridiculous Hummers.

    Oiram (983921)

  149. Sorry I meant Grampy McCain above not the “Main” (it’s still early) 🙁

    Oiram (983921)

  150. Talking about the success of the “surge” without looking at the bigger picture of the Iraqi invasion and whether it was justified does injustice to the real issue here.

    Nonsense. By the time the surge was bveing debated, there was no “bigger picture” left to look at. The Iraqi invasion was a fait accompli, so opposing the surge on the theory that we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place was sheer idiocy. Obama could have said “I still think we shouldn’t have gone in, but we are in, and given that, I support the surge.” That would have been a defensible position. Too bad/good he didn’t take it.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  151. We’re peaking now Drum, our addiction supply is about to be cut off, if not this generation then the next. Time to figure out alternatives now.

    Peaking? We haven’t even touched the vast quantities within the borders of the lower 48, much less off the Continental Shelves. Those reserves have been proven to be larger than the entire Persian Gulf region. Yet Congress doesn’t want us to use them.

    And what is opening the Arctic shelf going to do but prolong our dependence on non renewable energy.

    Fair enough. Back to whale oil, folks. (Whales are a renewable resource, after all.)

    Maine was one of those in fact way back when.

    And now that the situation has changed so drastically in the last two years, he is changing his position in an attempt to actually help out the American consumer. The Democrats won’t do the same. In fact, their only solution to any problem is to either tax it or outlaw it.

    Is it any wonder why their approval ratings are the lowest in history?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  152. I don’t wonder about their approval ratings. They need 66% to override King W. Who’s approval ratings are also the lowest in history.

    Oiram (983921)

  153. You must live here at Paternico Drum. How’s the kool aid? Maybe you should coffee.

    Oiram (983921)

  154. You must live here at Paternico Drum.

    Actually this is just one of several sites I visit frequently.

    In between times, I am running my own business, surfing the web, playing “Civilization 4” (I love turn-based strategy games), catching some TV and helping my 86yo mother-in-law (her care worker is only here 25 hours a week).

    I just comment when the mood strikes.

    I don’t wonder about their approval ratings. They need 66% to override King W. Who’s approval ratings are also the lowest in history.

    Their approval ratings don’t have anything to do with the President’s veto power. (And it’s 66.6667% – 2/3 majority, or 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate.). And Bush’s approval ratings are in double digits. Congress’ (under that “new leadership” we all had to hear about) is at 9%.

    You also seem to be implying that Bush is wielding his veto pen on everything Congress sends him, and that is demonstrably false. In fact, Bush has used the veto power fewer times than any full-term President in a century or more. Only 12 times has he vetoed legislation, and 4 of those – including the last three – have been overturned.

    So let’s not pretend that Congress dismal approval rating has anything to do with Bush. They are getting that crappy rating all on their own…

    You can thank San Fran Nan and Real Estate Reid.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  155. And I don’t drink either Kool-Aid or coffee. I prefer my caffeine cold and carbonated.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  156. Within seconds it was easy to find the Nunn-Lugar Act that has been in existence for over 15 years and has received near unanimous approval every time it has come up for renewal.

    Obama’s been stealing work since freakin’ Chicago days.

    He’s got a cartel of thieves and liars fronting him, ready to pimp for favors if puppet boy gets in. That is, unless all 57 states come together with enough votes to throw this cretin back to where he came. Of course, he’s already been told he’s going to rule for approx 8-10 years. Dictators… they’re just so maddening. Have a cigar.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  157. Remember, Obots. BHO has not been consistent on the war. Your Bill Clinton called it as it was: a fairy tale. Truth to power.

    Open your eyes and clear your brains of what is simply a mirage candidate. (Remember how you felt when you got smooth-talked into a big purchase which turned out to be a fraud. Mm-hm. That’s right.)

    #63 keeps the real Barry front & center:

    I don’t actually know whether he hates America personally, but he sure hangs out with a whole lot of people who hate this country, and “a man is known by the company he keeps”. Just ask your grandmother what she would think of a man whose closest associates have been

    * a man who bombed several public buildings (including the Pentagon)
    * a man who claimed that the US Government invented AIDS in order to kill off black people
    * a woman who could find nothing to be proud about the US in the last quarter century
    * a man who defrauded the pension fund of hundreds of thousands of public employees

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  158. I don’t wonder about their approval ratings. They need 66% to override King W. Who’s approval ratings are also the lowest in history.

    I’ve noticed that whenever anyone uses superlatives when discussing Bush they invariably have no clue about the subject upon which they’re speaking.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  159. Well, Taltos, that and the identity of the commenter was a good clue.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1317 secs.