The Democrat Thread

[Cknolls]

How dare Obama use his time oversees to improve American foreign relations!

 

 

And give the finger to the troops:

 

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has canceled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. "Barack Obama will not be coming to us," a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why." Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama

 

 

The trip was cancelled when a campaign staffer was told he could not accompany Obama on the trip to visit the troops, only personal and committee staff may accompany a sitting Senator on a visit but campaign staff may not. And if this is true, why didn't Obama tell the pinhead to remain behind?

 

[kapkomet]

But there's one thing you're missing...the people over there don't just hate Mr. Bush for his name or his family. They despise the way he's acted and the way he's run this country. "Goodbye from the worlds' biggest polluter (fist pump!)" and all that.

 

And I think there is more to Obama than just not being Bush. I honestly doubt that Hillary Clinton would have gotten a similar reception from the crowds around the world despite probably advocating similar policies. I think Obama's story and how it reflects on America, and the type of person he is, all fit in to that. Obama, at least for now, represents to the world what they're hoping America can still be...a land where a person can still make it.

What type of person is he?

[Balta1701]

What type of person is he?

By that I was sort of alluding to the race thing without wanting to come out and say it. The fact that we have a mixed race person with dark skin who's background traces rapidly to Kenya a step away from the White House...that's a story that few countries in the world can match.

[kapkomet]

By that I was sort of alluding to the race thing without wanting to come out and say it. The fact that we have a mixed race person with dark skin who's background traces rapidly to Kenya a step away from the White House...that's a story that few countries in the world can match.

And I think you hit a point that hasn't really been outright said: one of the biggest reasons that the media is driving this so hard is that they are trying to CREATE history, not just be a part of it. I think that's a huge reason why Obama gets the support he does. It's "new". But, it's not, and I hope people start to figure that out pretty soon.

 

[Balta1701]

And I think you hit a point that hasn't really been outright said: one of the biggest reasons that the media is driving this so hard is that they are trying to CREATE history, not just be a part of it. I think that's a huge reason why Obama gets the support he does. It's "new". But, it's not, and I hope people start to figure that out pretty soon.

Compared to the way things have been run the last 8 years, there is a fair amount that at least seems new. But there's only one way we're going to find out for sure...and that's to let the man run things for 4 years.

[lostfan]

I'm noticing that people seem to be downplaying the fact that history will happen if Obama does get elected, like it won't even matter... borderline resentful actually, that it had to be him that made history.

 

It would actually have as much historical significance as the Emancipation Proclamation if it did happen, let's make no mistake about that.

[bmags]

The funniest part about this whole thing is the allusion to Obama's speech that it was all about how America sucks. What a baseless thought. If you could just admit, that you knew, going into this speech, that you had your mind made up already that whatever Obama said it would fit your own narrative that he's a Euro-lovin, American-hatin liberal, this would all be a lot easier.

 

There was one line in the speech - about how America hasn't always lived up to its ideals - a statement completely true - undeniably true, in a speech that trumpeted America's role in modern Europe. How, in a speech where he trumpets the Berlin air raids, America's role in freeing Berlin, religious race gender equality, be seen as an "America Sucks" speech. A speech where he isolates and gives a long pre and post pause to "I love America" that is then met by cheers, that is an "America sucks" speech.

 

what a joke.

[kapkomet]

The funniest part about this whole thing is the allusion to Obama's speech that it was all about how America sucks. What a baseless thought. If you could just admit, that you knew, going into this speech, that you had your mind made up already that whatever Obama said it would fit your own narrative that he's a Euro-lovin, American-hatin liberal, this would all be a lot easier.

 

There was one line in the speech - about how America hasn't always lived up to its ideals - a statement completely true - undeniably true, in a speech that trumpeted America's role in modern Europe. How, in a speech where he trumpets the Berlin air raids, America's role in freeing Berlin, religious race gender equality, be seen as an "America Sucks" speech. A speech where he isolates and gives a long pre and post pause to "I love America" that is then met by cheers, that is an "America sucks" speech.

 

what a joke.

And it's also a joke that he's trying to become the Democrat version of Ronald Reagan.

 

[bmags]

Yes, who would want to learn from the past and emulate successes!

[lostfan]

The funniest part about this whole thing is the allusion to Obama's speech that it was all about how America sucks. What a baseless thought. If you could just admit, that you knew, going into this speech, that you had your mind made up already that whatever Obama said it would fit your own narrative that he's a Euro-lovin, American-hatin liberal, this would all be a lot easier.

 

There was one line in the speech - about how America hasn't always lived up to its ideals - a statement completely true - undeniably true, in a speech that trumpeted America's role in modern Europe. How, in a speech where he trumpets the Berlin air raids, America's role in freeing Berlin, religious race gender equality, be seen as an "America Sucks" speech. A speech where he isolates and gives a long pre and post pause to "I love America" that is then met by cheers, that is an "America sucks" speech.

 

what a joke.

That really does fit into the general post 9-11 mentality of the country though. Criticize America or point out flaws in any way, even if it's constructive, and you're espousing anti-American rhetoric. America, f*** yeah! Wooooo!

[bmags]

it wasn't as good a speech, but the parallels to this and the race speech are there.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Another John McCain Gaffe -- Iraq Was the First Major Conflict After 9/11

 

There is one more John McCain gaffe that the media missed from the now famous CBS interview with Katie Couric.

 

This is the same interview in which McCain claimed the surge led to the Anbar Awakening, which is demonstrably false. But watch below for another gaffe when McCain says Iraq was the first major conflict after 9/11.

 

 

Was Afghanistan not major enough for him? It almost reminds you of when Don Rumsfeld was not impressed with invading Afghanistan because it did not provide a rich enough target environment. He needed something more major.

 

In all likelihood, this was a simple mental mistake for McCain, among a litany of others recently. But it does go toward state of mind. They never saw Afghanistan as a priority.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

:headbang

 

So let's run down this interview:

1. Screwed UP the Surge Timeline
2. Forgot About Afghanistan and call Iraq the first major conflict post 9/11
3. Says he himself won the First Gulf War and Kosovo

Edited July 25, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

 

:headbang

 

So let's run down this interview:

1. Screwed UP the Surge Timeline
2. Forgot About Afghanistan and call Iraq the first major conflict post 9/11
3. Says he himself won the First Golf War and Kosovo

I haven't watched this but I bet he said "supported" Kosovo and the Gulf War, not says "he himself won"./

[Heads22]

2001 probably? Bush had all the political capital in the world at that point, what he did next is analogous to winning the lottery, going to Vegas, and blowing it all on coke and strippers. All before his first term ended.

 

Does this mean he could be the next Josh Hamilton?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I haven't watched this but I bet he said "supported" Kosovo and the Gulf War, not says "he himself won"./

Couric: "You have said 'I know how to win wars.' Which wars are you referring too?"

McCain: "Bosnia, Kosovo, First Gulf War, the Conflict in Iraq.... to name a few. I've been engaged in every single one of them. I am in the decision making process as of the senior members of the armed services committee. Am in engaged in the debates on the floor of the united states senate."

 

So, basically, "I voted for them. I supported them. I didnt plan them."

That doesnt really translate to "I know how to win wars". It translates too: "I know how to support wars"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._Armed_Services

Committee on Armed Services is a committee of the United States Senate empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security), benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to defense policy.

 

They do not run a war. The generals run the war. The generals win the war.

 

Ps: Bosnia and Kosovo... run by General Wesley Clark... not John McCain.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Nokona]

They do not run a war. The generals run the war. The generals win the war.

 

And that General was Wesley Clark.

[lostfan]

Does this mean he could be the next Josh Hamilton?

[lostfan]

And that General was Wesley Clark.

Yeah but the McCain campaign said that his service record was "less than stellar."

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yeah but the McCain campaign said that his service record was "less than stellar."

So, let me try and flesh this one out. John McCain "won" Kosovo and Bosnia. but the war was run by Clark who did a "less than stellar" job. So, John McCain did a "less than stellar" job in those wars. Correct?

[bmags]

Does this mean he could be the next Josh Hamilton?

 

this is hilarious

[lostfan]

So, let me try and flesh this one out. John McCain "won" Kosovo and Bosnia. but the war was run by Clark who did a "less than stellar" job. So, John McCain did a "less than stellar" job in those wars. Correct?

More or less, yeah.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Quick Follow Up-

McCain OPPOSED Bosnia:

The debate over U.S. involvement in Bosnia has made for some strange alliances in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole (R., Kan.), for example, is allied with liberal Senators Joseph Biden (D., Del.) and Paul Wellstone (D., Minn.) in supporting a stronger U.S. response to Serbian genocide. By contrast, Senator [John] McCain (R., Ariz.) - a former Vietnam POW and consistent Cold War hawk - is allied with Senator John Glenn (D., Ohio) in opposition to U.S. involvement.

 

Today some of the most conservative leaders in the U.S. Senate oppose American involvement in Bosnia. Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, and John McCain are all Bosnia doves.

 

And, He didn't know how to win Kosovo:

And in Kosovo in 1999, when he was running for President, McCain wanted to escalate, according to The American Conservative in their article The Madness of John McCain:

 

Three weeks after hostilities began, McCain delivered a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he declared that American intervention in the Balkans had been effectively stymied: "I think it is safe to assume that no one, including me, anticipated the speed with which Serbia would defeat our objectives in Kosovo, and the scope of that defeat." While conceding, "yes, the war is only three weeks old, and yes, NATO can and probably will prevail in this conflict with what is, after all, a considerably inferior adversary," he warned "victory will not be hastened by pretending that things have just gone swimmingly."

 

According to McCain, there were two big problems with the conduct of the war: first, "an excessively restricted air campaign that sought the impossible goal of avoiding war while waging one. The second is the repeated declarations from the president, vice president, and other senior officials that NATO would refrain from using ground troops even if the air campaign failed. These two mistakes were made in what almost seemed willful ignorance of every lesson we learned in Vietnam."

 

We were, he warned, in danger of "losing" to the Serbian army—with its outdated equipment and complete lack of an air force—if we failed to launch air strikes that were "massive, strategic and sustained." Furthermore, "no infrastructure targets should have been off limits"—factories, water plants, hospitals, schools, markets, whatever. Yes, "we all grieve over civilian casualties as well as our own losses," but "they are unavoidable."

 

(snip)

 

[T]he conflict lasted little more than 11 weeks, and, contra McCain, the U.S. was never in danger of losing. A "massive" bombing campaign would have accomplished little aside from inflicting untold suffering on innocent civilians and incurring the everlasting enmity of the Serbian people—and of decent people everywhere.

Clearly, John McCain does NOT know how to win wars.

[NorthSideSox72]

And I will forever judge him negatively because he did not have the character to stand up and do something stronger. It's not like we're talking about something trivial. He had the ability to essentially make the war happen or make the war not happen, and he decided to let his bosses have the war they wanted.

This is entirely inaccurate. Powell was not allowed to decide policy in that administration. He was used as an expert of sorts, but he had no real say. He wasn't part of the inner circle.

 

Now, as I said, I agree that he missed some clues, and that he could have tried to be more forceful. But, as he's smart enough to know he didn't have Cheney-like pull with Bush, he tried to steer things away from the direction they were going. He was consistently met with a brick wall. Then they let him go.

 

Please read the three Woodward books, Curveball, Blackwater, Cobra 22, and Fiasco. Blackwater and Fiasco contain some liberal bias, but have a lot of great information. THe Woodward books (he was actually seen as a pro-right guy and was welcomed into the White House) are the best source. You seem to have this really inaccurate picture of what Powell's role was in that administration.

[Balta1701]

This is entirely inaccurate. Powell was not allowed to decide policy in that administration. He was used as an expert of sorts, but he had no real say. He wasn't part of the inner circle.

 

Now, as I said, I agree that he missed some clues, and that he could have tried to be more forceful. But, as he's smart enough to know he didn't have Cheney-like pull with Bush, he tried to steer things away from the direction they were going. He was consistently met with a brick wall. Then they let him go.

He may not have had Cheney-level pull with Bush but he had it with the country.

 

If he had resigned and said no, instead of keeping all his blow-ups behind the scenes...it would have been almost impossible for the idiots-in-chief to go forwards.