McCain camp jumps on Obama remark

[heliochrome85]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com....aspx

Part of me wants to say that McCain is surrounded by a group of Karl Rove-ian style politicos, that give him a black eye. My gut feeling is that he is an honest guy who i would really enjoy meeting in person. The other part of me says that i cant believe he allows these kinds of comments to fly without any repercussions. I dunno. Im kinda worried that some of the McCain supporters like him solely for his "have a beer with" quality, and thats the sort of thinking that gave us the previous eight years.

[rn79870]

Wow, how McCain's campaign again chooses to follow the "look negatively at Obama" approach.

McCain adopts the Obama position on Iraq, and now wants the public to believe he had the 16 month plan in mind all the time?

After McCain on Friday seemed to agree with Obama that 16 months is a "good timetable" for withdrawing from Iraq

Let's see, McCain's gone from 1,000,000 years, to 1,000 years, to 100 years, to 50 years to 2013, then to the end of his first term (2012) now to 16 months per the plan Obama has promoted for over a year now. And McCain acts like this 16 month plan is his idea?

How can anyone say Obama flip flops when, as I've pointed out above, McCain has mentioned no fewer than 7 time tables for ending Iraq occupation? Pot meet Kettle.

Now, Sen Obama, I'll be much happier if you reduce it from 16 to 8 months.

[smockers83]

This article goes to show, like AZ tried to point out awhile back, that their "plans" (I put quotes there for a reason) on Iraq really don't differ all that much. Given that things continue the way they are and improve from here, 16 months to 2 years is definitely doable under either one of them. This shows that they (presidential candidates, military leaders, Iraqi leaders) want troops out, but they also need them to stay, as a noncombatants, as I've been trying to say for who knows how long.

The McCain campaign is trying to capitalize on the misconception that Obama wants to bring everyone home and we'll have no part in it after 16 months. McCain never "adopted" Obama's plan, he simply agreed that 16 months is doable. Must we start this 1,000,000 year comments again? Seriously? If I had an arrow I would draw it to what 1,000,000 years really means--the part that they want troops out but want them to stay as a residual force, as noncombatants.

Oh the long list of misconceptions, when will it end? Its seriously becoming torture.

[rn79870]

This article goes to show, like AZ tried to point out awhile back, that their "plans" (I put quotes there for a reason) on Iraq really don't differ all that much. Given that things continue the way they are and improve from here, 16 months to 2 years is definitely doable under either one of them. This shows that they (presidential candidates, military leaders, Iraqi leaders) want troops out, but they also need them to stay, as a noncombatants, as I've been trying to say for who knows how long.

How to you balance your statement with the fact that just last Friday, 7-25-08, McCain stated 16 months was a better idea as he adopted Obama's timetable?

Must we start this 1,000,000 year comments again? Seriously? If I had an arrow I would draw it to what 1,000,000 years really means--the part that they want troops out but want them to stay as a residual force, as noncombatants.

McCain said it, why should it be such a no no to mention it. Especially when it shows how fickle McCain is with his plan for bringing our troops home from Iraq. It's merely one of the 7 choices he's cycled through in arriving at Obama's original plan. It's funny that his most current timetable is similar to the one he's criticized Obama for all along.

[smockers83]

How to you balance your statement with the fact that just last Friday, 7-25-08, McCain stated 16 months was a better idea as he adopted Obama's timetable?

Where did he say it was a "better idea." There's always been a plan for withdrawal, its just that when do conditions warrant that plan be put into full action?

McCain said it, why should it be such a no no to mention it. Especially when it shows how fickle McCain is with his plan for bringing our troops home from Iraq. It's merely one of the 7 choices he's cycled through in arriving at Obama's original plan. It's funny that his most current timetable is similar to the one he's criticized Obama for all along.

Yes, he did say it. Can we at least agree that if you use that quote, put context into it or recognize the context of it. They weren't and are not "choices" for a time frame, they were statements to make a point, a point that needs to be made that US presence in Iraq will remain for a longer time than the war. Why do we have to be so focused on time frames? I could also say that Obama said he would meet with leaders of Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea, and Cuba unconditionally. He outrightly and very publicly said it.

[heliochrome85]

is it just me? or dyou guys also have John McCain ads at the bottom of the page?

i got this one just as i was about to post.http://www.johnmccain.com/land...aqwar

just out of curiosity, but dont you think it would be a good idea to actually talk to these countries? my feeling is that the uniting issue with all these countries is that all they want is US acknowledgement. Look at NK. they were like, we hate everyone. then the us was like fine, we'll talk. then NK was like, cool, we'll blow up our nuclear reactor to say thanks. why couldnt that work with other countries? why wouldnt that work? i know its simplistic, but on some level, everyone wants to be friends with the quarterback of the HS football team.

[rn79870]

I could also say that Obama said he would meet with leaders of Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea, and Cuba unconditionally. He outrightly and very publicly said it.

McCain spun that to make Obama look like a terrorlst for suggesting it. Many people feel that sitting down and talking is far, far better than saber rattling. I'm one of those people.

[srellim234]

For the next person who wants to bring up McCain's 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 year comment again-

PLEASE do us all a favor. Research and find a link to the ENTIRE clip, the one where you are claiming that McCain supported or didn't support leaving the entire military fighting force, engaged in combat operations just the same as where we are now, without any change in the situation on the ground.

I haven't seen anything from either side that said the current state of affairs there is completely, 100% acceptable and should remain as the status quo forever. Only that violence is currently less after the buildup of troop levels and both candidates have stated that some sort of a long term presence is probably a necessity. They just stated it differently.

The McCain side chastizes Obama supporters for taking McCain quotes out of context and then screams bloody murder when they get the same treatment in return.

Isn't anybody, including the average guy who supports his candidate, above this kind of B.S. anymore? And you wonder why candidates don't want to talk about any specifics??? You're not going to make any attempt to really listen and understand and instead misconstrue what is said to match what fits your own ego.

[smockers83]

McCain spun that to make Obama look like a terrorlst for suggesting it. Many people feel that sitting down and talking is far, far better than saber rattling. I'm one of those people.

Ah ha, you are capable of context. Good, that's a start. You just put context into that in that Obama was trying to make a point that he will meet with controversial leaders, a response to a question that people are not putting context into, even CNN. Now just put context into McCain in the same manner, please. Thank you.

McCain didn't try to make him look like a terrorlst for doing so. If so, please find it.

Steve, thanks for your support in this.

[rn79870]

Ah ha, you are capable of context. Good, that's a start. You just put context into that in that Obama was trying to make a point that he will meet with controversial leaders, a response to a question that people are not putting context into, even CNN. Now just put context into McCain in the same manner, please. Thank you.

Is that English?

[rn79870]

For the next person who wants to bring up McCain's 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 year comment again-

PLEASE do us all a favor. Research and find a link to the ENTIRE clip, the one where you are claiming that McCain supported or didn't support leaving the entire military fighting force, engaged in combat operations just the same as where we are now, without any change in the situation on the ground.

McCains 7 timetables were only brought up to show that he is the one flip flopping, not Obama. Obama has had the 16 month plan for over a year now, and McCain has only adopted it as reasonable as of 3 days ago.If he can't make up his mind, I don't mind pointing it out.

And

McCain supported or didn't support leaving the entire military fighting force,...

No one ever said that. McCain said "presence" when he referenced those long term time tables. Some of us don't want that long term presence, hence, we oppose it, hence we critize it.

[srellim234]

I never saw the speech where McCain's timetable called for the exact status quo being what he proposed for the next 1,000 years. Only that he supported a possible military presence for the next 1,000 years. Can you point me to that speech, please, where he stated he wanted to be engaged in military action, exactly the way it is now, without any draw down as the situation evolved over time?

He dismissed a draw-down timetable originally but if he has changed his mind based on what the generals and military on the ground are saying, he is exhibiting exactly the kind of insightful flexibility and adjustment to changing situations that you claim as a positive attribute for Obama. Again, it's great leadership if your guy does it, a lack of ability and poor decision-making judgement if the other guy does it.

Both sides are guilty of the same thing. Hence, I'm still researching the third party options available. Nobody to vote for here.

[rn79870]

McCain didn't try to make him look like a terrorlst for doing so. If so, please find it.

#1. John McCain lashed out at Barack Obama Tuesday for his pledge to meet “unconditionally” with oppressive leaders, including Cuba’s Raul Castro, if elected president.

“So it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to American national security if you sit down and give respect and prestige to leaders of countries that are bent on your destruction or the destruction of other countries. I won’t do it my friends,” McCain said to a town hall-style meeting in Little Havana, the heart of Florida’s Cuban-American community and stronghold of the anti-Castro movement.

Obama’s plan to soften the decades-old U.S. embargo against the Cuban regime would “send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators,” McCain said.http://elections.foxnews.com/2...olicy/

#2He offered what has become a standard attack on Sen. Obama, D-Il., for what McCain calls a willingness to sit down with Iranian leaders unconditionally, a proposal from which Obama has backed away.

“We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” McCain said, seeming to mock Obama’s plan. “Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad would actually gain.”http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit....html

#3 And finally, you might want to consider this poll before responding...Two-thirds of people said they believe it would be a good idea for the president to meet with the leaders of enemy countries, according to a Gallup poll released Monday. About six in 10 favor the president meeting specifically with the leader of Iran, including most Democrats and independents and about half of Republicans, according to the survey, which was taken May 19-22.

When 2/3 of the American public believes something, perhaps it is in a candidates best interest to listen to them.

[rn79870]

Can you point me to that speech, please, where he stated he wanted to be engaged in military action, exactly the way it is now, without any draw down as the situation evolved over time?

And VoteVets.org, the anti-war organization of Iraq war veterans, is airing a new cable TV ad that takes Sen. John McCain to task for saying that the United States might have troops in Iraq for 100 years -- "1,000 years,'' in this ad. But then, that's the way the political dialog goes.

He never said "in combat" he said presence.

And I found yet another comment, this time for a 10,000 year presence in Iraq.. And he's not referring to an embassy, he's referring to a military presence.

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years” or even a “million years.”

Fifty-nine percent say the U.S. should “stick to a withdrawal timetable” instead of keeping “a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years.”

But on CBS’s Face the Nation, McCain claimed that Americans would not be “concerned” if the U.S. spends “10,000 years” in Iraq:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...bases/

I'd be concerned. I'll need to edit his 7 comments now to 8.

1million, 100thousand, 10 thousand, 1 thousand, 100 , 2013, 2012 and16 months. Seriously, how bright is it for a candidate to make comments other than "ASAP" regarding a timetable.

Here is my point in a nutshell

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no permanent bases?

McCAIN: No, not forever, but certainly, we would be there for a long period of time in a support role, in many ways.

But by McCain’s logic, 10,000 or even one million years is not “forever.”

[smockers83]

#1. John McCain lashed out at Barack Obama Tuesday for his pledge to meet “unconditionally” with oppressive leaders, including Cuba’s Raul Castro, if elected president.

“So it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to American national security if you sit down and give respect and prestige to leaders of countries that are bent on your destruction or the destruction of other countries. I won’t do it my friends,” McCain said to a town hall-style meeting in Little Havana, the heart of Florida’s Cuban-American community and stronghold of the anti-Castro movement.

Obama’s plan to soften the decades-old U.S. embargo against the Cuban regime would “send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators,” McCain said.http://elections.foxnews.com/2...olicy/

#2He offered what has become a standard attack on Sen. Obama, D-Il., for what McCain calls a willingness to sit down with Iranian leaders unconditionally, a proposal from which Obama has backed away.

“We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” McCain said, seeming to mock Obama’s plan. “Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad would actually gain.”http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit....html

#3 And finally, you might want to consider this poll before responding...Two-thirds of people said they believe it would be a good idea for the president to meet with the leaders of enemy countries, according to a Gallup poll released Monday. About six in 10 favor the president meeting specifically with the leader of Iran, including most Democrats and independents and about half of Republicans, according to the survey, which was taken May 19-22.

When 2/3 of the American public believes something, perhaps it is in a candidates best interest to listen to them.

Really? That's all you have to show that McCain was portraying him as a terrorlst? You are joking right? I'm sorry, but I cannot help to not laugh at that dismal attempt. To #3, could you post the poll or something so I can see the wording of the question, because there's a difference between conditionally and unconditionally, so we may be including both samples, which would include me as well and McCain.

VoteVets.org is taking the comment out of context just like you...can I claim biased source like everyone else??? Seriously people, when are you all going to grow up? McCain isn't flip-flopping by any means. Whatever the case, Obama isn't going to be alive when/if all US troops are out of Iraq, nor is McCain, so who really cares about 100 years from now. That's 2 or 3 generations down from us. Obama is in the same boat as McCain on this. With that I'm done with this argument (I think for the 2nd time) because this is honestly just hopeless, just hopeless. How can I have a discussion with someone who can put context into one supposed controversial/misunderstood statement from his man and not the other?

[rn79870]

Really? That's all you have to show that McCain was portraying him as a terrorlst? You are joking right? I'm sorry, but I cannot help to not laugh at that dismal attempt.

So, when someone quotes McCain, why attack the messenger instead of the message? Sorry but my citation quoted McCain accurately. Not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To #3, could you post the poll or something so I can see the wording of the question, because there's a difference between conditionally and unconditionally, so we may be including both samples, which would include me as well and McCain

Sure, it's that unclear. 56% of the people thought talking was a good idea. McCain didn't.

VoteVets.org is taking the comment out of context just like you...can I claim biased source like everyone else??? Seriously people, when are you all going to grow up? McCain isn't flip-flopping by any means.

Do you have the slightest idea who/what VoteVets is? That "biased" comment might be different if you did.

Whatever the case, Obama isn't going to be alive when/if all US troops are out of Iraq, nor is McCain, so who really cares about 100 years from now. That's 2 or 3 generations down from us. Obama is in the same boat as McCain on this.

I care, and apparently over 60% of the American public does too.

With that I'm done with this argument (I think for the 2nd time) because this is honestly just hopeless, just hopeless. How can I have a discussion with someone who can put context into one supposed controversial/misunderstood statement from his man and not the other?

Argument? The facts and Citations I've offered aren't arguments. Not accepting them is just denial, nothing more. That's why I offer cites to contradict your opinions and guesses.

someone who can put context into one supposed controversial/misunderstood statement

I like that one the best, instead of taking McCain's comments at face value, I'm suppose to take your word for what he meant by it. Sorry, but as flawed as the news media is, it still carries more credability.

McCain isn't flip-flopping by any means.

Okay, pick any three of his timetables, 1,000,000 - 100,000 - 10,000 - 1000 - 100 - 50 - 2013 - 2012 - 16 months. Yes, just the two or three that you agree he said, and explain why that isn't a flip flop?

[AZhitman]

Look at NK. they were like, we hate everyone. then the us was like fine, we'll talk. then NK was like, cool, we'll blow up our nuclear reactor to say thanks.

And who did it? The current administration. BUT, then again, I'm sure Obama will figure out a way to take credit for it.

He's already prancing around like he thinks he's won an election, when his poll numbers have slipped 2% since he left on his trip.

[Marenta]

Hey now, Obama even sparkled my eyes when he first stepped up to the podium. And I am an die-hard Republican, about 75% conservative in most things. And, I almost took Obama to be a Kennedy-esque type person.

But, after a while, and listening to him speak, the twinkle faded, and he became all to real. We will never have those glory days back. So, how dare he think that he deserves The Brandenburg Gate, Ich bin ein Berliner, indeed! He's become pompous and absurd. He's starting to think he's actually the president, and not incumbent, or even running. He's not even thinking that he's still vying for votes at this point.

No, Mr. Barack Obama, you have not won over America yet.

Do not take these comments as an affront for BO, they are not a bash. I no more support BO than I do McCain. While I am right wing and republican, I no longer have faith in my party, nor it's choices to deliver this nation a leader. McCain's camp has done many a folly, and in the end, he will be called upon to rectify it. How, you ask? Well, that's up to you, in November. Choose wisely, the fate of the world depends on it.

[AZhitman]

McCain adopts the Obama position on Iraq, and now wants the public to believe he had the 16 month plan in mind all the time?

How can anyone say Obama flip flops when, as I've pointed out above, McCain has mentioned no fewer than 7 time tables for ending Iraq occupation? Pot meet Kettle.

This is getting ridiculous.

Flip-flop commencing:

"Get us out now"..."I'll confer with the commanders"... "I won't do what they say"..."I'll reassess as conditions change"... "No continued presence in Iraq"... "We need to maintain troops in the area for [this and that]"... "No permanent bases"..."We don't know how long it'll take to prepare them to be on their own"...

How about shutting the hell up and admitting that you'll do EXACTLY what any other sane candidate would do:

Assess, respond, reassess, respond, monitor, adjust and refine, with a goal of getting the hell out.

Unbelieveable that the press is claiming Mac is adopting "Obama's Plan" as if it were EVER concrete and unchanging. A "plan" is something documented and set forth to follow, not a loose idea of a general direction you'd like to pursue if conditions permit it.

As someone who supervises a crew of auditors, when they provide me with an Audit Plan, I EXPECT that their assessment of conditions in the target area ahead of time, to make sure conditions are suitable for the implementation of said plan.

"Get most of our troops home as soon as possible without being risky or endangering lives unnecessarily" is EVERYONE'S objective, and the Obamallamas don't have a "copyright" on it.

Cripes, this is a no-brainer.

[rn79870]

zerothread/354332

"Get most of our troops home as soon as possible without being risky or endangering lives unnecessarily" is EVERYONE'S objective, and the Obamallamas don't have a "copyright" on it.

True, they just had the courage to mean (note, I didn't use the word "say") it first.

[AZhitman]

zerothread/354332

True, they just had the courage to mean (note, I didn't use the word "say") it first.

Thanks Bobby - I was on my lappy on wifi and it takes a while to find / copy a link.

[smockers83]

Put up another one for McCain "flip flopping" on his Iraq strategy. He can be quoted saying that troops could be pulled out in 1 month.

Now he's ahead of the game on Obama on this.

[AZhitman]

Put up another one for McCain "flip flopping" on his Iraq strategy. He can be quoted saying that troops could be pulled out in 1 month.

Now he's ahead of the game on Obama on this.

They could be pulled out in 3 days, too. But at what cost?

It just points out the idiocy of people latching onto his "100 years" comment and taking it to mean we should occupy another country for as long as possible.

[srellim234]

Off topic, but I just want to let you guys know we're just fine here. The earthquake, magnitude 5.8 about a half hour ago, was centered about 15 miles from here, knocked a few things off shelves, but no damage. Phones were out for about 15 minutes.

[heliochrome85]

im glad. i can imagine limbaugh bouncing off the walls. "we almost got rid of liberal california to the sea!, SO CLOSE!" not this time rushy. keep poppin those pills and spewing that hatred.

[rn79870]

I was at Mission Bay when it hit. It rippled the water a little and shook the ground, but CA is still firmly attached to the continent. Earthquakes start getting fun at about 6.8. I wasn't far from Colinga when it hit in 83. It was a 6.8 and it shook the crap out of everything. I'd hate to feel a 7.5.

[srellim234]

Yep, I was born here in 1954 and I've been through all of them. Earthquakes as large as Northridge and Big Bear are not fun.

Sorry for the hijack, everyone, but I figured everyone reads every thread here and this was the quickest way for all of us Southern California people to check in and tell everyone we're all right. Or, still here and left. Or, done shaking right and left and centered again. Or, ???.

[smockers83]

Glad to hear you guys are ok. LoL at the Rush comments, that crazy fool. We really don't want to lose you guys, its a beautiful state...I love San Diego. Where I'm at in MI, we get a tremble every day around 12:30 like clockwork. When I first moved and it happened, I started freakin out. After a month or so, I finally figured out it was the mine blasting rock for the next 24 hours haha.

[skylndrftr]

After a month or so, I finally figured out it was the mine blasting rock for the next 24 hours haha.

Sure its not all the UAW guys headed home?

[ontopic]I really wish we could ban the candidates and their obnoxious campaign bull****ters from mentioning the other candidate. If you have a plan to get elected, do it on the merits (and that goes both ways)

[smockers83]

Sure its not all the UAW guys headed home?

UAW workers don't work in mines??? The Steel Worker's Union does.