More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

[Tigermike 3,673]

More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

WHY ISN"T OBAMA MAN ENOUGH TO APOLOGIZE?

This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama claimied he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?”

SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)

Like Obama said, “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, YES WE CAN. Those YouTube quotes, in Obama's own words, show Obama’s dishonest smear against McCain and that Obama lied on the Today Show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g

We have been through this before, but Obama continues the distortions, even though Obama acknowledges McCain was speaking about a post-war situation like South Korea, not a 100-year war:

“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)

Non-Partisan Fact-Checkers Call It Distortiion:

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org calls DNC attacks on “100 Years” comment a “serious distortion” and “a rank falsehood:” “

The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com calls Obama attacks on “100 Years” comment “false:"

”“Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

The Washington Post's FactChecker -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test:

McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq. … [T]hey have twisted his words, by claiming that he 'wants' to fight a 100-year war.

Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Senator McCain’s Position:

The New York Times’ Frank Rich -- “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.”:

“Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)

Columbia Journalism Review -- “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said:”

“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. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

New Hampshire Union Leader -- “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It:”

“You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)

The New York Times -- Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment:

“But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder -- Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said:”

“[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press -- “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq:”

“[sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

USA Today -- McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted:”

“[sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke -- “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard:”

“Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer -- “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking:”

“But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch -- Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them:”

“Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

National Review -- “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time. . .:”

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez -- “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus:”

“Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does perhaps we can engage in a new Politics -- a new civil politics different than Obama's Chicago rules.

link

[arnaldoabru 11]

Wow, what a surprise, a rightwing web site

[WinCrimson 61]

The 100 years comment by McCain was amazingly stupid, so there's a part of me that thinks he should be punished for such a grade A blunder.

Then again, it is being taken out of context. It's obvious what he meant and I hope we don't twist his every word into being something that it isn't like they did to Kerry. I'm sick of Rovian politics.

[TexasTiger 14,160]

Impressive use of font size .

More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

WHY ISN"T OBAMA MAN ENOUGH TO APOLOGIZE?

This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama claimied he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?”

SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)

Like Obama said, “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, YES WE CAN. Those YouTube quotes, in Obama's own words, show Obama’s dishonest smear against McCain and that Obama lied on the Today Show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g

We have been through this before, but Obama continues the distortions, even though Obama acknowledges McCain was speaking about a post-war situation like South Korea, not a 100-year war:

“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)

Non-Partisan Fact-Checkers Call It Distortiion:

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org calls DNC attacks on “100 Years” comment a “serious distortion” and “a rank falsehood:” “

The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com calls Obama attacks on “100 Years” comment “false:"

”“Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

The Washington Post's FactChecker -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test:

McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq. … [T]hey have twisted his words, by claiming that he 'wants' to fight a 100-year war.

Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Senator McCain’s Position:

The New York Times’ Frank Rich -- “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.”:

“Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)

Columbia Journalism Review -- “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said:”

“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. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

New Hampshire Union Leader -- “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It:”

“You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)

The New York Times -- Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment:

“But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder -- Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said:”

“[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press -- “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq:”

“[sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

USA Today -- McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted:”

“[sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke -- “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard:”

“Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer -- “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking:”

“But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch -- Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them:”

“Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

National Review -- “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time. . .:”

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez -- “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus:”

“Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does perhaps we can engage in a new Politics -- a new civil politics different than Obama's Chicago rules.

link

[MDM4AU 337]

Wow, what a surprise, a rightwing web site

I know! I mean, who has ever heard of the sources this Repug website quotes? New York Times? USA Today? Associated Press? They must be owned by News Corp or Haliburton.

[TitanTiger 21,147]

Wow, what a surprise, a rightwing web site

Wow, what a surprise, arnaldo running off at the keyboard before engaging the two brain cells he has left.

Do you even pay attention to the things you respond to, or do you have a predetermined list of asinine responses you just puke out on demand?

[TexasTiger 14,160]

You have to hand it to McCain. It's impossible to imagine any of the other Republicans engaging in this kind of extended conversation with a citizen. There was more real debate in this exchange than in any of the so-called real debates.

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

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hend...dred-years.html

[arnaldoabru 11]

Wow, what a surprise, a rightwing web site

Wow, what a surprise, arnaldo running off at the keyboard before engaging the two brain cells he has left.

Do you even pay attention to the things you respond to, or do you have a predetermined list of asinine responses you just puke out on demand?

Wow, you finally got something right,the arnaldo part.

[AURaptor 1,137]

McCain is right to be mad at Obama for twisting his words. But it shows Obama is a coward and can't deal w real issues as they are, but as he tries to form them. Obama is a fool.

[TexasTiger 14,160]

McCain is right to be mad at Obama for twisting his words. But it shows Obama is a coward and can't deal w real issues as they are, but as he tries to form them. Obama is a fool.

McCain said its okay with him if we're there a million years.

[TitanTiger 21,147]

Wow, what a surprise, a rightwing web site

Wow, what a surprise, arnaldo running off at the keyboard before engaging the two brain cells he has left.

Do you even pay attention to the things you respond to, or do you have a predetermined list of asinine responses you just puke out on demand?

Wow, you finally got something right,the arnaldo part.

Actually, given that the quotes came from places such as FactCheck.org, The NY Times, The Columbia Journalism Review, The New Hampshire Union Leader, The Associated Press and The Atlantic, I was right on the other part too. You lack the capability to offer an intelligent informed response to anything but "What's your name?"

[AURaptor 1,137]

McCain is right to be mad at Obama for twisting his words. But it shows Obama is a coward and can't deal w real issues as they are, but as he tries to form them. Obama is a fool.

McCain said its okay with him if we're there a million years.

I think he said 10,000 yrs, but the amount of time isn't the issue. Taking what McCain said out of context seems to come easily for you on the Left, huh?

[TexasTiger 14,160]

McCain is right to be mad at Obama for twisting his words. But it shows Obama is a coward and can't deal w real issues as they are, but as he tries to form them. Obama is a fool.

McCain said its okay with him if we're there a million years.

I think he said 10,000 yrs, but the amount of time isn't the issue. Taking what McCain said out of context seems to come easily for you on the Left, huh?

He's said both. And he hasn't articulated a way out of Iraq. We can't leave if violence is up, we can't leave if violence is down.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

[DKW 86 7,880]

Factcheck.org is pretty accurate site. They split the smallest of hairs to get it right. I havent been there of late, but I can only remember one post, during the 2004 election I disagreed with and it was a Swiftboat piece they simply called "unfair."

arnoldo, that wasnt just one website in case you simply cant read.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

We can't leave when violence is down if there is no political reconciliation...which is exactly what we are seeing now.

Texas Tiger made a great point and highlighted the primary problem with the current strategy. Again, you guys who are trying to frame this as a win/lose for the U.S. are completely wrong....this is not our war to win - it's Iraq's. We have given them more than a fair chance at a democracy, but at some point, they have to stand up and fight for themselves and pay for themselves. We can't continue with the American blank check they've had the last 5 years.

We are stuck there trying to keep the peace in some one elses' civil war with 2 maybe 3 sides who adamantely refuse to get along. What a mess.

[AURaptor 1,137]

There is no civil war.

[RunInRed 18,172]

There is no civil war.

[Tigermike 3,673]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

We can't leave when violence is down if there is no political reconciliation...which is exactly what we are seeing now.

Texas Tiger made a great point and highlighted the primary problem with the current strategy. Again, you guys who are trying to frame this as a win/lose for the U.S. are completely wrong....this is not our war to win - it's Iraq's. We have given them more than a fair chance at a democracy, but at some point, they have to stand up and fight for themselves and pay for themselves. We can't continue with the American blank check they've had the last 5 years.

We are stuck there trying to keep the peace in some one elses' civil war with 2 maybe 3 sides who adamantely refuse to get along. What a mess.

A civil war fueled and funded by the Iranians. Who BTW Obama wants to negotiate with. With no preconditions.

He plans to tell them about hope and change. Well the Iranians already are dealing in hope and change. They hope Obama wins and forces a U.S. pullout which would change the entire Middle East. They hope that pullout would allow them to change the face of Israel.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

We can't leave when violence is down if there is no political reconciliation...which is exactly what we are seeing now.

Texas Tiger made a great point and highlighted the primary problem with the current strategy. Again, you guys who are trying to frame this as a win/lose for the U.S. are completely wrong....this is not our war to win - it's Iraq's. We have given them more than a fair chance at a democracy, but at some point, they have to stand up and fight for themselves and pay for themselves. We can't continue with the American blank check they've had the last 5 years.

We are stuck there trying to keep the peace in some one elses' civil war with 2 maybe 3 sides who adamantely refuse to get along. What a mess.

A civil war fueled and funded by the Iranians. Who BTW Obama wants to negotiate with. With no preconditions.

He plans to tell them about hope and change. Well the Iranians already are dealing in hope and change. They hope Obama wins and forces a U.S. pullout which would change the entire Middle East. They hope that pullout would allow them to change the face of Israel.

So we can't leave when the violence is up and we can't leave when the violence is down. And now we might have to go into Iran. Brilliant.

[Tigermike 3,673]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

We can't leave when violence is down if there is no political reconciliation...which is exactly what we are seeing now.

Texas Tiger made a great point and highlighted the primary problem with the current strategy. Again, you guys who are trying to frame this as a win/lose for the U.S. are completely wrong....this is not our war to win - it's Iraq's. We have given them more than a fair chance at a democracy, but at some point, they have to stand up and fight for themselves and pay for themselves. We can't continue with the American blank check they've had the last 5 years.

We are stuck there trying to keep the peace in some one elses' civil war with 2 maybe 3 sides who adamantely refuse to get along. What a mess.

A civil war fueled and funded by the Iranians. Who BTW Obama wants to negotiate with. With no preconditions.

He plans to tell them about hope and change. Well the Iranians already are dealing in hope and change. They hope Obama wins and forces a U.S. pullout which would change the entire Middle East. They hope that pullout would allow them to change the face of Israel.

So we can't leave when the violence is up and we can't leave when the violence is down. And now we might have to go into Iran. Brilliant.

You leftist dems have sold your soul fro defeat in Iraq. The myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they -- not America -- come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.

[RunInRed 18,172]

This is NOT our war to win.

[Tigermike 3,673]

This is NOT our war to win.

As I have said before the dems have staked out their position of DEFEAT! They have sold their collective souls for the defeat of the U.S.

PS - Collective is a word Obama uses frequently isn't it.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Yeah, we can leave when the violence is down. That's the whole part of the surge. But we likely won't be completely out, just as we aren't completely out of Japan or Germany. Both former enemies , now both our friends. THAT's what McCain is articulating , for those who are honest enough to listen.

We can't leave when violence is down if there is no political reconciliation...which is exactly what we are seeing now.

Texas Tiger made a great point and highlighted the primary problem with the current strategy. Again, you guys who are trying to frame this as a win/lose for the U.S. are completely wrong....this is not our war to win - it's Iraq's. We have given them more than a fair chance at a democracy, but at some point, they have to stand up and fight for themselves and pay for themselves. We can't continue with the American blank check they've had the last 5 years.

We are stuck there trying to keep the peace in some one elses' civil war with 2 maybe 3 sides who adamantely refuse to get along. What a mess.

A civil war fueled and funded by the Iranians. Who BTW Obama wants to negotiate with. With no preconditions.

He plans to tell them about hope and change. Well the Iranians already are dealing in hope and change. They hope Obama wins and forces a U.S. pullout which would change the entire Middle East. They hope that pullout would allow them to change the face of Israel.

So we can't leave when the violence is up and we can't leave when the violence is down. And now we might have to go into Iran. Brilliant.

You leftist dems have sold your soul fro defeat in Iraq. The myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they -- not America -- come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.

We've already won.Saddam is dead.Now it is time to bring our troops home. And what are the left's "MYTH'S" about the war. Would those be like Bush's and Cheney's lies.