Sen. McCain - do you have a plan for victory in Iraq?

[rn79870]

How is one a "known" when he shifts constantly? He's repeatedly contradicted himself. So how does one "weigh" something which changes daily?

I've been watching his platform for some time now, and I don't see any evidence of shifting or editing. Perhaps you're listening to McCain and his weak "he is shifting" stance. McCain can't run a campaign trying to make a guy with a plan look bad when he himself has no plan.

[smockers83]

Yes, Obama wasn't president. Neither was McCain.

Bob just had an epiphany. If only the rest of the people could think that way.

[AZhitman]

I'd post the quoted part of his plan again, but why, you don't want to see it.

That's not a "plan"... At all. Post it again, so everyone can poke it full of holes.

It's not a "plan", it's what his handlers tell him to say.

[AZhitman]

I've been watching his platform for some time now, and I don't see any evidence of shifting or editing.

I'm the one guy here who's seen NEITHER candidates' website.

I culled the quotes on his shifting stance from seperate and unrelated news stories in USA Today.

Do I need to re-quote him so you can see him shifting / contradicting?

[AZhitman]

...and after all the yapping about J-Mac being "stubborn":

"After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn't changed. (Really? See my quote above - which is it, Barack?)

In an exclusive interview, Obama told "Nightline" that if elected president, "we're going to begin to phase out our troops." Obama is seeing a vastly different Iraq than the one he saw when he last visited more than two years ago. Violence and American casualties are way down, and the streets of Baghdad are bustling again. So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent.

Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no. (Stubborn? Yup.)

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues." (Say WHAT? How about just answering the question without a canned statement from your THREE HUNDRED advisors, Slick.)

If this were football, he's be Herschel Walker, juking left and right.

[rn79870]

I'm dyin' here. This is so effing hypocritical it's funny.

Are the people reading this really this STUPID?

A journalist gets to determine WHAT'S "required" to be in a published article????

Perhaps you're missing the part where they asked him to address the issues the same way Obama did.

Guys, where's BO's "plan" that meets this pinhead's ridiculous criteria? SHOW ME.

It was published by the NYT late last week.

And since when does the Dem camp care about "achieving victory"? ANSWER ME! Really - Weren't we JUST hearing BO rail on about getting out of Iraq UNCONDITIONALLY??? Unconditionally means "win or lose".

That would be more relevant if McCain would answer one of the questions the NYT asked him to answer - "What defines a win." For some reason, McCain is refusing to answer that.

Where's BO's timetable? He SAID "no firm timetable". Guess no one's reporting on that? Where's the timetable? NOT the military commanders' guesses - Obama's TIMETABLE, since he's "The Boss"

I posted it in this thread, supra.

How's BO gonna get Iraq to comply? By running? HOW? How is he going to ensure cooperation? Where's his plan?

Don't you think it's a little arrogant of America to expect Iraq to comply with or cooperate with our wishes? Maybe we need to let them run their own country.

What a f***ing joke.

We'll never know what was in J-Mac's op-ed piece, will we? Because it ddn't pass muster for some pencil-necked libbyass reporter.

No, we'll never know because there was nothing in it. They merely asked him to respond as Obama had to the same issues Obama did. Fair enough and as a voter, I'd like to see it. If I were McCain, I'd do it just so I didn't look like such a clueless person.

Where's our freedom of speech, you clowns? PUBLISH IT LIKE THE MAN WROTE IT.

Sure, don't cooperate with an honest request for answers by providing a definitive intelligent response.

[rn79870]

I'm the one guy here who's seen NEITHER candidates' website.

I culled the quotes on his shifting stance from seperate and unrelated news stories in USA Today.

Do I need to re-quote him so you can see him shifting / contradicting?

Let's ignore what he has writte, and posted, in favor of what someone else thinks they heard him say. Papers never get anything wrong do they?

On the other hand, Obama has the courage to put his position, in great detail, on his web page. Refreshing.

[AZhitman]

Let's ignore what he has writte, and posted, in favor of what someone else thinks they heard him say. Papers never get anything wrong do they?

Fair enough:

That wish isn't consistent with McCain's "hypothetical" we'll could be there another 1000 years.

I'll assume you'll extend JM the same namby-pamby courtesies.

Or don't.

If he was misquoted, he'd have attorneys all over them. He said it Bob. I interview people every day. I carry a recorder, and double-check as I'm documenting their answers. Quit trying to give BO a free pass to say stupid s***.

[AZhitman]

Perhaps you're missing the part where they asked him to address the issues the same way Obama did.

I missed nothing. Obama didn't "...articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." Quotes are from the douchebag NYT reporter, not me.

It was published by the NYT late last week.

Nope. Obama didn't "...articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." So, he didn't meet the same criteria the NYT asked of J-Mac.

That would be more relevant if McCain would answer one of the questions the NYT asked him to answer - "What defines a win." For some reason, McCain is refusing to answer that.

Maybe BO could answer it?

Don't you think it's a little arrogant of America to expect Iraq to comply with or cooperate with our wishes? Maybe we need to let them run their own country. .

You're seeing the light: Yep, it is arrogant. "...measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate" is a request from the douche reporter at the NYT. He asked for something stupid. Big surprise he didn't get a response.

No, we'll never know because there was nothing in it. They merely asked him to respond as Obama had to the same issues Obama did. Fair enough and as a voter, I'd like to see it. If I were McCain, I'd do it just so I didn't look like such a clueless person.

Really? You KNOW this?

Maybe it was much as I've pointed out - A response that says, "Look, guys - This is too complex and dynamic an issue to cram into a one-page article that you clowns will spin later, and then I'll be committed to it when things inevitably change."

Sure, don't cooperate with an honest request for answers by providing a definitive intelligent response.

Who says he didn't? And furthermore, who says he has to cooperate with something stupid?

Did BO meet the criteria laid out by the NYT editor? NO. Let me restate: NO.

Quit dodging - Where's our beloved freedom of speech? Publish the piece JUST as the man wrote it. If it makes him look dumb, all the better.

I think they didn't publish it because it wasn't all frou-frou and horsesh** like BO's "plan" that amounts to nothing substantive.

[smockers83]

This is John McCain's PlanFor the 2nd time.

McCain's definition of win and success is accomplishing the goals he has mentioned.

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

The only thing missing from this in regards to Obama's plan is 16 months.

However, Obama's plan is 16 months with options from what I understand, so 16 months is not concrete.

[rn79870]

It's interesting that you'll go to great ends to try and fault Obama and his plan, yet you're mute on McCain's lack of a plan. Would you care to post what McCain has in store for us if he wins?

(But do it without using 100 years in your text becasue some are tired of hearing about that problem)

Btw, the Obama article you were questioning...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...l?8qa

[AZhitman]

It's interesting that you'll go to great ends to try and fault Obama and his plan, yet you're mute on McCain's lack of a plan.

I'm gonna call you Lasorda from now on.

I'm saying it's hypocritical to ask one man for a "concrete plan" with all these stipulations, supposedly "like Obama's plan" when there IS NO SUCH PLAN.

Let me be clear: BO HAS NO PLAN. He has "wants" and "desires". He has NO PLAN.

What you've posted is NOT a PLAN. If it were, it would meet the criteria they asked of J-Mac. It doesn't.

If one of my auditors came to me with an audit plan that looked like BO's "plan", I'd laugh (and then fire them).

[smockers83]

Do I really have to post it for a 3rd time in this thread? Because I will do it.

Oh, and PS, get back to work! Unless you have the day off like myself. I'm obviously joking.

[AZhitman]

Here's my take on much of his feel-good rhetoric:

"Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown."

False.

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. "

But BO opposed the surge.

"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."

For maybe 10 years? 100? Possibly? Gee, a lingering presence?

"I would consult with commanders on the ground..."

...but not defer to them? Your words, BO. Consultation without heed is pandering. Military commanders will LOVE that.

"We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. "

DUH. Bet you're really good at board games like Risk. You're the next Schwartzkopf, huh BO? What a retard.

"...commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees"

Why? Let them fend for themselves. They'll have a new government, won't they? So why do they need US aid?

"the Taliban is resurgent "

News to me. Even the Arabic news sources say otherwise.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."

Sounds like a surge. You oppose surges, Senator. That's not "bringing troops home".

"we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea"

But you said above: "a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."

[smockers83]

Find a statistic or statistics on this subject and I'll show a statistic or statistics that conflicts with yours. Please include the question number you get it from.

Since I got no response, I took the liberty of showing my analysis with the questions. Also, it should be noted that this is the same post as the one I posted in another thread.

You're really going to make me do it huh? Here comes the polling data from across Iraq.

Q3. What is the single biggest problem facing your life these days?The answer US presence/occupation garnered 5% of the answers. People are at least twice as concerned about jobs and the supply of electricity, 10% and 11% respectively.

Q7. Not personally, but in terms of Iraq, what in your opinion is the single biggest problem facing Iraq as a whole?The answer US presence/occupation garnered 6% of the answers. People are at least twice as concerned about security/safety and terrorlst attacks, 13% and 12% respectively.

Now to the more obvious conflicting information.

Q9. I would like to ask you about today’s conditions in the village/neighbourhood where you live. Would you rate (insert item here) as very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?The security situationVery good 20%Quite good 42%Quite bad 27%Very bad 12%*Numbers taken from March 2008. 62% say its good in some form, 39% say its bad in some form. The goods are up from about 48% from last year. Now just remember this is a random sample of Iraqis all across Iraq, in each province and district. So it should be noted that security/safety has increased all through Iraq from the previous year.

Q10a In the past six months has the security situation in this neighbourhood/ village become better, become worse, or stayed about the same?Become better 46%Become worse 17Stayed about the same 36Refused/I don't know 1

Q11 Same as 10, but Iraq as a whole.Become better 36%Become worse 26Stayed about the same 37*Nothing too conflicting here with Q10, just that 10% shifted to worse.

Q12a [ASK IF Security Situation has “become better” in Q11] Who do you feel deserves the most credit for this improved security?Iraqi Army 13Iraqi Police 18Muqtada Al-Sadr 5Awakening Councils 8Iraqi Government 26Other 30*As I said in my previous analysis, essentially all of the domestic influences have been mentioned, leaving the other essentially to the US and Coalition forces. However, it should be noted that this 30% represents 10.8% of those polled.

Q12c [ASK IF Security Situation has “become worse” in Q11] Who do you feel deserves the most blame for this worsened security?US forces operations 20Militias 13Al Qaeda 9Neighbouring countries 6Politicians/political groups 11Iraqi Government 9Parties and their militias 18Other 14*Mention the US and you get a comparatively response along with Parties and their militias. This 20% represents 5.2% of those polled.

Q14. I am going to name a number of organizations. For each one, please tell me if you have a great deal of confidence, quite a lot of confidence, not very much confidence, or none at all?The Iraqi ArmyGreat deal of confidence 28Quite a lot of confidence 37Not very much confidence 24None at all 11The Police Great deal of confidence 33Quite a lot of confidence 34Not very much confidence 20None at all 13 US Occupation Forces Great deal of confidence 4Quite a lot of confidence 16Not very much confidence 33None at all 46Awakening CouncilsGreat deal of confidence 16Quite a lot of confidence 40Not very much confidence 27None at all 9Refused/don’t know 7*They have a lot of confidence in the police and army, yet those that said security was better didn't give them a lot of credit. A majority have confidence in the Awakening yet barely anyone attributed it increased security as well. Mention the US and you get a strong negative answer yet most that said security was better essentially accredited to US and coalition forces without mentioning the US or coalition.

Q15 Thinking of the current national government of Iraq, how do you feel about the way in which it has carried out its responsibilities? Has it done a very good job, quite a good job, quite a bad job, or a very bad job?Very Good Job 13Quite a Good Job 30Quite a Bad Job 30Very Bad Job 26*56% don't approve of the government's job. Further....

Q16. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nouri Kamel al-Maliki is handling his job as prime minister?Approve 40Disapprove 58Refused/don’t know 2*So to say the government is in alignment with the Iraqi people could be slightly off base based on the facts presented here.

Q20 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?Strongly Support 7Somewhat Support 19Somewhat Oppose 31Strongly Oppose 41*It is clear with the wording of this question that they don't want us here.

Q21 As you may know, the United States has increased the number of its forces in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in the past six months. For each item I name, please tell me if you think this increase of U.S. forces has made it better, made it worse, or had no effect.Security in the areas where these forces have been sentBetter 36Worse 53Had No Effect 10Refused/don’t know 1Security in other areas of IraqBetter 30Worse 49Had No Effect 21*This goes directly against reports that violence is down nearly 90%. This also conflicts with the data in Q9 where 62% of those all over Iraq said security was better. Said differently, this question presents viewpoints of the outside world which conflicts with localized data.

Q22 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?Leave now 38Remain until security is restored 35Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger 14Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently 10Remain longer but leave eventually 3Never leave 1*According to this question, only 38% of Iraqis want us to leave now or ASAP. The rest reflect McCain's goals. Leaving politics out of it, Iraqis want us to stay until we finish the job.

Q23 Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?Better 27Worse 61No Effect 11*Slightly different question than 21, but goes against previous results as well. Can't necessarily draw the same criticisms as in 21 but if one looks at previous questions I've posted, you may see what I'm talking about.

Q24 Groups called Awakening Councils have been organized in some areas of the country with the support of the Americans in an effort to restore security. In these areas where they have been created, do you think these Awakening Councils have made security better, worse, or had no effect on the security situation?Better 51Worse 16No Effect 31Refused/don’t know 2*All the while that only 8% in Q12a credited the Awakening with increased security. However, to figure out the true data behind this question, one needs to ask those who said Worse in Q11 about ways and who can be accredited with security improvements.

Q26 Thinking about the political action of other people, do you find each of these items to be acceptable or not acceptable?Attacks on Coalition forcesAcceptable 42%Not acceptable 57Refuse/ don’t know 1

Q32 As you may know, British forces have mainly left Basra province in recent months. Since the British left, do you think the security in Basra has become better, become worse, or remained the same?Better 28Worse 38About the same 31Refused/don’t know 3*What has happened

Q33 If the American forces left the country entirely, do you think the security situation in Iraq overall would become better, become worse, or remain the same?Better 46Worse 29About the same 23Refused/don’t know 2*What has yet to happen. This goes against what has happened. So do they really know?

Q34 For each item I name, please tell me if you think the United States should or should not have a future role in that area:Providing training and weapons to the Iraqi armyShould 76Should not 23Refused/don’t know 1Providing financial aid for reconstruction within IraqShould 73Should not 26Assisting in the security of Iraq in terms of IranShould 68Should not 31Assisting in the security of Iraq in terms of TurkeyShould 66Should not 34Participating in security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in IraqShould 80Should not 19Refused/don’t know 1*A supermajority exists in each one. So you're telling me they want us out? This proves exactly the opposite. And if they oppose us so much, why do they say this. And if they approve attacks against us, why should we want to help them in this way? Conflicting information again.

Q43 Do you think the separation of people on sectarian lines is a good thing or a bad thing for Iraq?Good thing 7Bad thing 92*This question has nothing to do with anything we're talking about, but it was a surprise to me to see a call for diversity along these lines. I don't know why it did, just media fed misconceptions I guess. Awesome!

[rn79870]

Do I really have to post it for a 3rd time in this thread? Because I will do it.

Oh, and PS, get back to work! Unless you have the day off like myself. I'm obviously joking.

Yes, I think so for three reasons.1. You can't stay on the topic, that is, whether McCain has a clue how/when the Iraq disaster will end in less than 1000 years.

2. You choose to ignore 2 years of polls, including the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi president asking us to leave in favor of your poll sponsored by the UK government through the BBC. (or so it appears)

3. You didn't even parse your results or you'd have seen that several of the questions, and some of those you omitted, more than 50% of the people responded unfavorably to the US presence. For instance the question re: things being better 57 % answered unfavorably.

It sort of seems that you're omitting data in favor of that data that favors your point. In fact, the majority of the questions were answered in an unfavorable manner.

[rn79870]

Smocky, one more thing. This article from 7/22/2008...(today)The Iraqi Government said yesterday that it had a vision for all US combat troops to leave the country by the end of 2010 — another apparent endorsement of Barack Obama's war strategy during his visit to Baghdad.

The sudden and unexpected Iraqi comments on the desire for a timetabled withdrawal, made by Ali al-Dabbagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi Government, was greeted with dismay by the White House and John McCain, Mr Obama's Republican rival, who opposes setting an exit date.

The call came after the Democratic presidential hopeful held talks with Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister.

“We are talking about a real timetable which Iraqis set, up to the end of 2010,” Mr al-Dabbagh said — backing a timeframe that falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Mr Obama.

On Sunday, after Mr al-Maliki was quoted in the German magazine Der Spiegel as backing Mr Obama's timetable, the White House forced Baghdad to rush out a statement claiming that the Prime Minister had been misquoted. It was Mr al-Dabbagh who issued that partial retraction.

His abrupt about-turn apparently indicates that the increasingly confident Iraqi Government has decided to exploit Mr Obama's visit to exert pressure on Washington, drawing more concessions during negotiations over the future status of US forces in the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...2.ece

Hopefully McCain will read this too.

[smockers83]

1. You again can't get it out of your little, thick head that you're taking the quote out of freakin' context Bob!!!! Please, please, I beg you to watch the full interview--we've even quoted it somewhere in this forum just for you. He has more of a clue than you do, that's for sure. And this is on topic because you started the conversation about the poll, I'm just following your lead.

2. Let me show you how stupid you sound right here. Lets take the approval polls of Bush immediately after 9/11 and use them today. Guess what? You can't, but according to your logic you can so you might as well start quoting those, too. Polls are taken over and over Bob to judge the change of opinions. Do you not get that???

3. Things being better is too general to apply to this subject, which is why I did not include it. I tried to include all questions that specifically had to deal with the US. Pardon me if I missed a question or two over 23 pages of data. I also don't find any statistic of 57% anywhere for March 2008 in that poll. Please post the question number you used as I requested so I can easily find it.

And in regards to that article, Obama is f'ing up on his visit to the Middle East. Gen P sat next to Obama on the helicopter and said 16 months isn't going to work. Afterwards Obama says that its 16 months no matter what Gen P says. Obama opposes and denies the surge in Iraq yet he wants to orchestrate his own surge in Afghanistan??? What the hell is that? He even said he would vote against it even with the benefit of hindsight. You know what? This sounds like Bush to me. Oops, did I just say that? Now we're voting for Obush.

[rn79870]

You're so cute when you try to act like you understand the situation.

Afterwards Obama says that its 16 months no matter what Gen P says.

Great, we have found a leader. A President willing to put it on the line and get us out of the mess the Iraqi people, Iraqi Parliament and Iraqi President want us out of, not to mention the majority of the American people. (sorry, your single poll, in view of the 5 sources I've provided, didn't change my mind, 5 > 1).

[smockers83]

5 sources quoting the same thing doesn't count as 5 sources, its still only one source, that source being the quote. My conclusion if I wrote a paper on this (I've pretty much already started an outline for one here), which would have no political bias, just looking at the data would read as follows:

It cannot be decisively concluded whether the Iraqi people want the US and Coalition forces to leave now or as soon as possible. It can be concluded however, that they do want us to leave, but under certain conditions. As shown in polling, only 38% of the Iraqi people want us to leave now unconditionally. The rest of the country, 62%, wants us to leave under certain conditions, a conditional surrender if you will. Also, as the data shows, a supermajority of the country wants us to stay conditionally under the terms of regaining security, providing aid for reconstruction, and to help with security with Iran, Turkey, al Qaeda and other jihadists. There is a lot that can go uncovered in polling people, such as the wording of questions and internal feelings. These can bias answers but wording of questions is done by professionals in order to obtain the best answer possible. But the feelings part, people can show frustrations or complete happiness in polling by providing answers to the extremes and may not entirely reflect their views.

That's an unbiased conclusion and all it does is look at the data, possible effects of polling, and the known problems of polls. That's all it does. It does say they want us out, but now how you claim they do. The majority of Americans also don't want it how you claim it to be.

[smockers83]

Great, we have found a leader.

If by leader, you mean more doublespeak and inexperience, then sure we have found Obush. McCain might be benefiting from Obama getting all the media coverage as we can find all the doublespeak and problems...all McCain has to do is sit back and aim at the holes.

World War II was said and expected to be done by Christmas of 1944. If we had a timetable of ending WWII by Dec 25, 1944, what would the world be like today? Nazi Germany could be running rampantly across the globe. Hell, you and I might even be Nazis right now.

[AZhitman]

Great, we have found a leader.

That's leadership?

Didn't he say that there'd be no definitive deadline?

Didn't he say he'd consult with military commanders?

Didn't he say he wouldn't do what they said?

Didn't Bush already agree to a timetable? (conveniently ignored by the lefties here)

He'd better watch himself - He ain't the Commander-in-Chief, and his disrespect and arrogance oughta net him an asswhuppin.

FWIW, all my buddies in the 'box said they've been WARNED to not be disrespectful if BO tours their area. Nice, huh?

That's NOT leadership. TRUE leaders don't need to threaten their followers.

[AZhitman]

No response to my 12:47 PM 7/22/2008 post?

Let's just gloss over the tough questions... Bob, you might wanna bring in Hash to help you with this one.

[smockers83]

Didn't he say that there'd be no definitive deadline?

Didn't he say he'd consult with military commanders?

Apparently, but today he said 16 months no matter what and he also talked with General P and didn't take his opinion that withdrawal in 16 months wouldn't be good.

[AZhitman]

Ah.

So now he's smarter than the General. Surprise!

Like I said, keeping one's mouth shut seems smarter and smarter every day. Mr. Big Mouth is making this TOO easy.

His contributors should ask for a refund.

[smockers83]

Yea, hence my new nickname for him--Obush.

His visit to the Middle East is flopping big time and it just began. Even CNN is starting to question him. I also forgot to add this, in case you missed it--Barack wants to orchestrate his own surge in Afghanistan.
Modified by smockers83 at 2:42 AM 7/23/2008

[AZhitman]

Hear that the reporters weren't mic'ed?

You could hear his answers, but not the questions... How convenient for him.

No one's thrown him any high heat yet - I'd love to ask him 10 questions, no teleprompter, no notes. Just us and a camera.

[rn79870]

Ah, Thank you Mother Jones for offering something that puts this whole matter in perspective...

Note, that's McCain down there at the corner of "Hell no, we won't go & Gung ho from the git-go" This simply proves what I've said all along. McCain has no plan other than staying in this mess for hundreds of years and "winning." I wish he would define "winning" - in terms less nebulous than "when violence is down."

And anyone arguing WWII strategy with respect to Iraq strategy probably never had a history class nor comprehends the difference between the two issues. It would be like the US attacking Mexico because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That logic = fail.

[srellim234]

And anyone arguing WWII strategy with respect to Iraq strategy probably never had a history class nor comprehends the difference between the two issues. It would be like the US attacking Mexico because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That logic = fail.

You are 100% wrong when you state you can't use a WWII analogy. We are not in Irag for the right reasons, true, and didn't belong attacking them when we did, but the development of a long term presence can evolve along WWII lines if everything falls into place.

Refusing to learn from a situation or refusing to acknowledge that the situation could evolve along a similar line as after WWII from this point forward is very narrow and shortsighted on your part. You are dismissing a possibility only on the grounds that it didn't start identically.

We're addressing where we go from here, not how we got here.

[rn79870]

Steve, maybe the situation we should have learned from was Vietnam, it is far closer in logic than WWII. In WWII we responded to 2 enemies bend on destroying our military and invading our country. In Vietnam, we interfered in a political situation we had no business (in hindsight) becoming involved in. I don't see the analogy to WWII, sorry.