McCain Previews General Election Strategy: Dems Were Wrong About Iraq

[Yellowdogtexan]

The war in Iraq is very unpopular and so it makes sense for the republicans to make the war in Iraq the key issue in the November elections. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_previews_general_electi.phpAt a press conference today, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain signaled his general election strategy: Dems were wrong about Iraq; Bush's strategy is "succeeding," the surge worked, if we had done things the Dems' way, Al Qaeda would have succeeded in Iraq...

Kicking off your campaign with a message that's at odds with solid majority sentiment that the war wasn't worth fighting doesn't strike us as terribly sound, but perhaps McCain is practicing the Rovian technique of turning your opponents' greatest advantage into a weakness.

It's also worth noting that Obama, perhaps more so than Hillary, can argue that if we'd never invaded in the first place, something McCain aggressively championed, there would never have been any Al Qaeda in Iraq in the first place.This means that McCain is putting all of his eggs into one basket and will need to convince the American people that the Iraq invasion was really a good idea and that the invasion is working. The later is going to be dependent on the Iraqis working out their political differences and getting a working government in place to show the American people some real progress. While I hope that this may happen, I would not bet on it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senator Obama directly addressed the Iraq war in his victory speech tonight and made it clear that he has major differences with McCain's position that the Iraq war was a good idea and is going well. This is going to be a fun issue to watch in that McCain is going to have a hard time defending the Iraq war

[Wabash]

You really think Obama is gonna be President huh?

[cassandra]

So do you think Obama will just sit around saying we should never have gone in the first place?

[Yellowdogtexan]

So do you think Obama will just sit around saying we should never have gone in the first place?Yes. It is clear that bush lied about the reasons for the war in iraq. These lies are well documented and even more documentation will be coming out before the election. I would love to see Mccain try to defend the bush lies about wmds and the reasons for the war in Iraq. It would be fun to watch Obama tear McCain up on these lies.

BTW, attacking McCain and bush on these lies is also good politics. Several polls show that a decent majority of the American public know that bush lied about Iraq and a number of polls show that a good majority of Americans do not believe that the war in Iraq was worth the killed soliders and money expended. bushies may not like these numbers but the American public (at least the majority of the american public who are intelligent) know that the Iraq war was based on lies and was wrong.

[cassandra]

Sadly that is what politics has become. :kickcan
It just seems so ridiculous to sit around saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Shouldn't he have better things to discuss than "liar liar pants on fire."

[Yellowdogtexan]

It just seems so ridiculous to sit around saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Shouldn't he have better things to discuss than "liar liar pants on fire."You are talking to the wrong person here. I never thought that bush made the case for invading Iraq. I have been against the invasioin from day one and was never convinced by even Powell's presentation to the UN.

The concept that Saddam would give wmds to Bin Ladin was just plain stupid and even the bogus NIE relied on by bush came to that conclusion. The crazy libertarians at the Cato Institute wrote some very good white papers (position papers) on why the US should invade and had some really compelling analysis as to why it was stupid to believe that Saddam even if he had WMDs would give these wmds to terrorists or use such wmds other than in connection with an invasion of Iraq by Iran or the US. This was the same conclusion that was in the bogus NIE that bush used to sell the war in Iraq at the end of such document (evidently Bob Graham of Florida was one of the few people who read that far and understood what this conclusion meant).

A number of Democrats voted against the IWR for good reasons. One of the strenghts of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton is that he did not vote for the war in Iraq and can make a stronger case as to why going to the war was a bad idea in the first place. The fact that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq will be an issue in the general election and Senator Obama is well suited to take McCain to task for the lies used by bush to sell this stupid war.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Sadly that is what politics has become. As for the more simple issue of whether we stay in Iraq for the next 100 years or withdraw, McCain is going to have to deal with some bad poll numbers. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawalA Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 61% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That's up a point from a week ago and two points from two weeks ago. Over the last eighteen weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.

Twenty-four percent (24%) now want the troops brought home immediately.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 34% want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That is down two points from a week ago. The number of Americans who want the troops to remain and finish the mission had ranged from 32% to 39% since tracking began. McCain can count on 34% support on his position while Senator Obama has the support of 61%. Those are good odds in my book.

[cassandra]

Yeah I don't think you are hearing me YDT. Or you just want to post your opinion one more time. :roll

You and the OP are suggesting that he will just sit around pointing fingers in McCain's face. That isn't defending his position. I understand you may have ideas on how to fix this issue but I don't hear them from Obama. I hate tattlers and to me this is just tattling. He should come up with real ideas on how to fix it and campaign with them rather than sneering and pointing at another. Sounds like a lot of big show and distraction.

Very disappointing that politics has turned into this kind of banter. :kickcan

I think it would be a great idea for Obama to bring up his lack of experience. :snicker

[VRWC]

McCain can count on 34% support on his position while Senator Obama has the support of 61%. Those are good odds in my book.

The funny thing is, no matter who is President, McCain, Clinton, Obama, whoever, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE will bring troops home within a year. No one wants to be saddled with a "loss" which is what it would be considered. This will really piss off the far left and fracture the Democratic party. Nobody will bring the troops home unless military commanders on the ground there agree that they can be sent home.

[patriotsblade]

Cassandra, you equate criticizing the President of the United States of America for telling lies, lies that have cost nearly 4,000 American lives, thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi lives, and billions of our national treasure to schoolyard tattle-telling. I feel sorry for you.

[cassandra]

Cassandra, you equate criticizing the President of the United States of America for telling lies, lies that have cost nearly 4,000 American lives, thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi lives, and billions of our national treasure to schoolyard tattle-telling. I feel sorry for you.

I equate Obama's strategy of dealing with this issue as tattling.

America knows that he lied. Get over it. Move forward!!! Course clholloway is right. This won't be solved and that is why Obama doesn't want to actually talk about it. He would have to face those facts.

[Yellowdogtexan]

You and the OP are suggesting that he will just sit around pointing fingers in McCain's face. That isn't defending his position. I understand you may have ideas on how to fix this issue but I don't hear them from Obama. I hate tattlers and to me this is just tattling. He should come up with real ideas on how to fix it and campaign with them rather than sneering and pointing at another. First I am the OP and the article posted was a campaign theme that the mccain campaign intends to run with in the upcoming general election. I posted that article about this campaign theme because I thought that the concept of defending the original invasion of Iraq is a bad idea. Mccain however has elected to make both the original invasion and his plan to stay in Iraq for a 100years as part of his platform.

As for Senator Obama's position, you should have listened to Senator Obama's speech in Houston last night (it was very very good). Senator Obama addressed getting the troops out of Iraq and then noted that it was just as important not to make the mistake in the first place. Senator Obama was against the war from the start and was correct in his judgment. You have to compare this to mccain who is happy with the war and would have done the same stupid invasion all over again even if he knew that there were no wmds.

This is a major difference between the two candidates. McCain is defending a stupid and wrong decision where Senator Obama is committing not to be as stupid as the bush was when he invaded Iraq based on stupid reasons that did not hold up. The US should not use military force unless all avenues had been exhausted which was not the case in Iraq. The Iraq war was based on fixed facts and fixed intelligence and was a bad idea. bush refused to let the UN inspectors complete their job becausae he knew that the inspectors would expose the fixed facts and intelligence used to sell the war. You can vote for a president who made stupid decisons like this but I prefer to support a more intelligent approach.

[cassandra]

Maybe McCain, like all the others who voted for the war, is defending what he believes in.

Thanks for allowing me to vote as I please. I do however wonder if Hillary wins the nomination how you will feel.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Thanks for allowing me to vote as I please. I do however wonder if Hillary wins the nomination how you will feel.Happy. The Democrats are blessed with two strong candidate. Either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama will have no trouible beating mccain. While I am supporting Senator Obama, I will be happy either way. Senator Obama can make the case that the original war was wrong in a far stronger manner compared to Senator Clinton but both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are clear that we need to get our troops out of this stupid war.

As between Senator Obama and McCain, I find a clear distinction between a person who is supporting going to war based on lies and fixed intelligence versus a candidate who is promising not to be as stupid as bush. That is an easy choice for me.

[cassandra]

That is an easy choice for me.


Glad there is something we can agree on. :tarty

[Yellowdogtexan]

One of the other dangers in McCain basing his election campaign on Iraq going well is that factors outside his control will affect the viability of this proposal. Just as Iran did everything in its power to give the election to Reagan, there are factions in Iraq who could decide to give the election to the Democrats.

The main reason that US troop deaths have not been as high for a while has been a cease fire by a major Shia militia that is schedule to expire on Sunday. The leader of that miitia is being put into the driver seat by McCain's campaign strategy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AunL91tvoAx985TwR5nTt6Cs0NUE The cease-fire has been a key element in a three-piece puzzle that has come together to help reduce violence since mid-2007. The two other factors are the influx of thousands of U.S. troops last summer, and creation of Sunni-dominated groups funded by the U.S. military to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, the most extremist of the Sunni insurgents.

"Al-Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire has been helpful in reducing violence and has led to improved security in Iraq. We would welcome the extension of the cease-fire as a positive step," Smith told The Associated Press, using an honorific reserved for descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, said that if the cleric failed to issue a statement by Saturday saying the cease-fire was extended, "then that means the freeze is over."

On an Internet site representing al-Sadr, al-Obeidi said that al-Sadr "either will announce the extension or will stay silent and not announce anything. If he stays silent, that means that the freeze is over."

Al-Obeidi told the AP that message "has been conveyed to all Mahdi Army members nationwide."

The ambiguity left many Iraqis uneasy.

"The drop in violence and the quiet which Baghdad witnesses is a clear evidence that this militia was behind all the chaos in the past," Sunni parliament member Asmaa al-Dulaimi told the AP.

She said ending the cease-fire "will affect national reconciliation and will further deteriorate the security situation nationwide. Resuming their activities, whether against the government or civilians, will lead to a new confrontation with them."Ending this cease fire would also hurt McCain badly. McCain's strategy is based on al-Sadr deciding that he wants McCain as president.

[VRWC]

But you still seem to be forgetting that NO President will bring the troops home within a year, and it is a silly, stupid claim to make, that they will.

[AYFR]

Yes. It is clear that bush lied about the reasons for the war in iraq. These lies are well documented and even more documentation will be coming out before the election. I would love to see Mccain try to defend the bush lies about wmds and the reasons for the war in Iraq. It would be fun to watch Obama tear McCain up on these lies.

BTW, attacking McCain and bush on these lies is also good politics. Several polls show that a decent majority of the American public know that bush lied about Iraq and a number of polls show that a good majority of Americans do not believe that the war in Iraq was worth the killed soliders and money expended. bushies may not like these numbers but the American public (at least the majority of the american public who are intelligent) know that the Iraq war was based on lies and was wrong.
REally

FROM MM even

On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

[...]

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

[VRWC]

And just to point something out to YDT and others on here, there is a difference between lying and being provided with wrong information.

But according to most of you, this President is a complete, bumbling idiot(which isn't to far off at times), but he was a genious in putting together a plan involving the State Department, the Defense Department, the FBI, CIA, and intelligence agencies from France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and numerous others to snowball an entire nation into a war?

Well, which is it?

[toxic]

I equate Obama's strategy of dealing with this issue as tattling.

America knows that he lied. Get over it. Move forward!!! Course clholloway is right. This won't be solved and that is why Obama doesn't want to actually talk about it. He would have to face those facts.

Political Accountablity (not tattling) is a tough pill to swallow for those that perpetuated the biggest foreign affairs blunder in American history.

Actually, I'm not sure every American knows the truth yet, else the War Crime trials would be in progress and we would be building gallows in the Wash DC Mall.

Of course, Obama has so few achievements to talk about, he will have to make his War position central to his campaign. So plan to hear this rerun for the next 9 months.

[toxic]

And just to point something out to YDT and others on here, there is a difference between lying and being provided with wrong information.

But according to most of you, this President is a complete, bumbling idiot(which isn't to far off at times), but he was a genious in putting together a plan involving the State Department, the Defense Department, the FBI, CIA, and intelligence agencies from France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and numerous others to snowball an entire nation into a war?

Well, which is it?


Chill,

Bush is a liar and an idiot for listening to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.

He knew he was lying and so did everyone in congress after they got to know him ~say mid 2002. Hillary is a liar too.

Here is a list of posts that I put together back around the time of the invasion.

Some I have written a synopsis.
Some of them have expired and moved to archives.
Some were updated at a later time.
Some were read into the congressional record (Check Oct 7-10, 2002).

They all were evidence of Bush faking the evidence BEFORE THE INVASION.

WMD INTELLIGENCE FAKED BY BUSH:
Intelligence Officers:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4234549.htm
Dissent over going to war grows among U.S. government officials
... a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats ... charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al Qaeda terrorist network -- ...
Oct. 07, 2002 (archived)
Copy in Congressional Record:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107jvxsHk:e154871:
(If above is temporary go here and click page H7722 go to bottom a also H7723)
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H57707

Military Intelligence:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676
Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq Oct 8, 2002
... military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats... charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses

Pentagon&CIA:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4384408.htm
Pentagon, CIA in bitter dispute on Iraq Oct. 28, 2002
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/4366174.htm
CIA, Pentagon, in bitter dispute on Iraq Oct. 25, 2002

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2002/10/27/build/world/90-intel.inc
Intelligence agencies' infighting fuels dispute over Iraq

CIA:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81148,00.html
Ex-CIA Accuse Bush of Manipulating Iraq Evidence March 17, 2003... retired, CIA officers are accusing the Bush administration of manipulating evidence against Iraq in order to push war while burying evidence that could show Iraq's compliance with U.N demands for disarmament....


CIA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
White House warned over Iraq Claim

Sec Powell's aid:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
The man who knew (this has been updated many times)

FBI:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium

US Foreign Service Diplomats:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-13.htm
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

Inspectors:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.cnna/
Ex-Inspector: Iraq not pursuing nuclear arms

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/5222696.htm
Tell the people the truth
I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie.

Implied by Bush appointed Anti-Terror Boss:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040543-3049r
Top White House anti-terror boss resigns
Published 3/19/2003 5:37 PM
week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism. ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1136351,00.html
US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMD

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
"I'm not sure which planet they live on"
Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.
Oct. 17, 2002 | President Bush continues to encounter war critics in the unlikeliest of places -- the United States military, for example.

[Trueblue]

Thanks for that documentation, toxic. It's important to keep in mind that we were lied into war by the Bush administration, because the nation can't afford to make the same mistake again.

[nixon]

Sadly that is what politics has become. :kickcan
It just seems so ridiculous to sit around saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Shouldn't he have better things to discuss than "liar liar pants on fire."We do have better things to do. As a nation, we could very easily move on. All I want to hear is Bush come clean with all of America and have himself say going there was a mistake with Cheney standing by his side. 30% are happy with his job performance. He has shamed America.

[Yellowdogtexan]

REally
FROM MM even
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002Did you read this article or are you being dishonest in your cut and paste??? I know that in the past you have had trouble understanding simple concepts and there have been some real issues with your reading comprehension. I hope that this is the case because otherwise you are guilty of misrepresenting what Senator Obama said and taking his quotes entirerly out of context which I consider to be dishonest and disgusting.

If you had read and understood the article (again I hope that your distortions are due to your inability to read and understand and not due to some dishonesty on your part), you would have found that your quotes were taken out of context. The article is clear as to the following:Obama was not, as Kurtz suggested, asserting agreement with Bush on the war itself. The July 27, 2004, Tribune article quoted Obama as saying: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage" [emphasis added]. The article went on to note that Obama "opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
Just because Howard Kurtz in the Media Matters article misquoted and took Senator Obama's comments out of context does not mean that you should also engage in the same dishonest behavior. If you had actually read and understood the Media Matters article, you would know that the quotes provide by you are misleading and taken out of context.

Just to clarify, it is clear that Senator Obama has a clear position on why the war in Iraq was stupid from the very begginning of such war. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/“But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”Senator Obama's position on the removal of the troops from Iraq is also set forth on his website. Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.Again, I hope that you did not try to mislead this board with your quotes and that your misstatements about Senator Obama's position as clearly described in the Media Matters piece cited was not due to an effort by you to lie or mislead the readers. Again, you may want to carefully read the material that you are posting or quoting from to make sure that you understand the context and are not taking the material out of context.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I am not the only one to realize the danger of the mccain's plan to make support of the Iraq war a central part of his campaign. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/moqtada-mccain_b_87535.htmlWhatever may be Moqtada's motive, a resumption of warfare against American troops will have a direct impact on John McCain's presidential ambitions. Why?

McCain has been cheeleader-in-chief of the military's Iraqi "surge" strategy. He has ridden the surge like a magic carpet arguing to the American people that he deserved a good deal of the credit for forcing the Bush Administration to adopt it. Even on the ashes of a failed policy, poll after poll shows that the surge's success in quelling much of the violence in Baghdad and in Al Anbar province has effectively taken Iraq off the political agenda of the presidential campaign as the top issue of concern to Americans.

But keeping the lid on Baghdad's violence has less to do with Al Qaeda in Iraq (largely reduced to a band of scattered terrorists), and far more to do with the venom that could be once again unleashed by Moqtada's Mahdi Army and the other Shiite militias that take their orders from Iran's Revolutionary Guard leadership just across the border.

If Moqtada decides to revert to violence, the U.S. military will be forced to turn its sights against the Mahdi Army and the casualties will surely ramp up and grab front page headlines back in the U.S.

That would certainly not augur well for McCain's presidential campaign.

Despite the surge's military gains, the last thing that Gen. Petreaeus needs is to have to reengage the Mahdi Army, which has proven time and again to be a force to be reckoned with. And the last thing McCain needs is a media that begins reminding the American people why his unyielding support for a long term commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq is just a carryover of Bush's Iraq disaster.

Moqtada is no fool. He is a cunning chameleon who has successfully played us like a fiddle. His ultimate goal is to become leader of Iraq, and if that happens, surge and all, that would constitute the ultimate measure of defeat for the America's failed Iraq policy. Moqtada is not yet that close to the prize, but he will make a calculated determination whether even a limited break of the cease fire could compel the Iraqi government to more forcefully reign in the Sunni rearming taking place under the guise of the Sunni Awakening.

Last night in Columbus, Ohio, McCain turned his sights on Barack Obama and fired away at his inexperience as a potential commander in chief. But McCain's unfair attacks on Obama may backfire on him. Like any other terror leader in the world, Moqtada is carefully watching the Presidential campaign in the U.S. Moqtada knows that a McCain victory will keep American troops in Iraq far longer than he can tolerate in order to fulfill his political ambitions. That's why Moqtada may soon decide it is time to send a signal to the American people that McCain's Iraq strategy is full of holes. If that happens, McCain's magic surge carpet may fast lose its altitude, and there is nothing that he will be able to do about it.

Unfortunately, in this dangerous game of "surge political chicken" it's the American military that will have to defend McCain's misplaced bravado. I am fearful that mccain's plans here may actually encourage al-Sadr to end the ceasefire in order to scuttle Mccain's chances to win the general election. The end of such cease fire would result in the deaths of US soliders and that is something that should be avoided. If huckabee was the GOP nominee (that is NOT going to happen), al-Sadr would have less motivation to end the cease fire in order to affect the general election.

[AYFR]

Did you read this article or are you being dishonest in your cut and paste??? I know that in the past you have had trouble understanding simple concepts and there have been some real issues with your reading comprehension. I hope that this is the case because otherwise you are guilty of misrepresenting what Senator Obama said and taking his quotes entirerly out of context which I consider to be dishonest and disgusting.

If you had read and understood the article (again I hope that your distortions are due to your inability to read and understand and not due to some dishonesty on your part), you would have found that your quotes were taken out of context. The article is clear as to the following:Just because Howard Kurtz in the Media Matters article misquoted and took Senator Obama's comments out of context does not mean that you should also engage in the same dishonest behavior. If you had actually read and understood the Media Matters article, you would know that the quotes provide by you are misleading and taken out of context.

Just to clarify, it is clear that Senator Obama has a clear position on why the war in Iraq was stupid from the very begginning of such war. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/Senator Obama's position on the removal of the troops from Iraq is also set forth on his website. Again, I hope that you did not try to mislead this board with your quotes and that your misstatements about Senator Obama's position as clearly described in the Media Matters piece cited was not due to an effort by you to lie or mislead the readers. Again, you may want to carefully read the material that you are posting or quoting from to make sure that you understand the context and are not taking the material out of context.
Yep I did read it and I never claimed he was for the war from teh begining. I was pointing out his changes on the war. He has not been consistent on his position on the war.

Actually the whole quote is this.

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

[...]

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

He was against the war, then hs said that we must stay and stabilize the war-ravaged nation (a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration)
Now he says that all the troops must come home ASAP.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Yep I did read it and I never claimed he was for the war from teh begining. I was pointing out his changes on the war. He has not been consistent on his position on the war.You have a real issue with either honesty or with reading comprehension. Your quotes were taken out of context from an article which had it main point was to point out that the quotes were being taken out of context. I guess that understanding context of a quote is a concept that you do not understand.

[AYFR]

Not to mention both Hillary and Obama have stated the will leave troops in Iraq till 2013.

While Obama smore consistent the Hillary on the war they still both ave changed their positions on it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

He was against the war, then hs said that we must stay and stabilize the war-ravaged nation (a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration)
Now he says that all the troops must come home ASAP.How many years have it been since 2004? How many US soliders have died since 2004? How much money has been wasted on this stupid war in Iraq since 2004? What has been achieved? Has there been any progress toward a real Iraqi government been made in this time period? Has a full blow civil war broken out with a great deal of sectarian cleansing taken place since 2004?

I realize that these questions are way beyond your ability to understand and that you are not smart enough to understand why the answers to these questions explain Senator Obama's policy as posted on this thread. Rest assure that a large majority of the American public can answer these questions and understand why the answers to these questions are indeed relevant to why our troops need to leave Iraq as evidenced by the poll numbers that I have cited.

Senator Obama was against the war from day one but recognized Sec. Powell's pottery barn analogy that we had a responsibility to try for a while to fix Iraq. That time has expired and it is clear that the Iraqis are not making any progress and we need to leave. I prefer Senator Obama's position to Senator McCain's position that the US needs to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.

[AYFR]

I prefer Senator Obama's position to Senator McCain's position that the US needs to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.

I actually agree with this part.

We do need a benchmark pullout.

You missed my point but that is nothing new given your inability to see past you own nose.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senator Obama twice worked Senator Clinton's vote on Iraq into the debate tonight promising to take it to McCain on whether the original decision to go to war was a wise decision. Both times, he was very effective on this issue and I am looking forward to seeing McCain try to answer this issue

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senator Obama has a memo out to his supporters about the issue of the original decision to go to war in Iraq. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_campaign_hillarys_debate.phpThe Obama camp continues to press the argument that he's the more electable Dem today, sending out a memo highlighting what it wants us to see as the key moment from yesterday's debate: Hillary's criticism of John McCain for supporting the Iraq War.

The moment that the Obama camp is pointing to came yesterday, when Hillary attacked McCain for supporting "the wasteful tax cuts of the Bush administration and the Iraq war." To which the Obama camp's memo has now rejoined:The question is: how can Senator Clinton attack Senator McCain for authorizing the war, when she cast the very same vote?

When it comes to the key issues facing the American people, Obama is the one Democrat in this race who can give voters the clearest choice in this election. Obama opposed the war in Iraq, Clinton supported it. Obama has been clear on torture, Clinton has not...

Barack Obama, on issue after issue against McCain, offers the opportunity to choose change we can believe in versus a third term of George Bush’s policies.This is a key argument Obama will try to use to close this thing out -- a case that's forward looking and seeks to reassure Dems about his electability in the general election. Again, Senator Obama was against the war from the beginning and can raise this issue in debates with McCain. McCain is defending the war in Iraq as being a good idea and that casts strong doubt on his judgment which Senator Obama will be able to exploit.

[issac the dragon]

I heard on CNN that al Sadr will keep the ceasefire going for at least the next six months. I guess that means he wants McCain to win.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I heard on CNN that al Sadr will keep the ceasefire going for at least the next six months. I guess that means he wants McCain to win.Not really. Six months from now would be right during the start of the general election season, i.e. just in time for the maximum political damage to mcCain. al-Sadr is very smart and knows when he has the maximum leverage.

I expect the bushies to bend over backwards and to give al-Sadr everything he wants to keep civil war from re-starting. This may be bad for Iraq but would be good for mccain and the gop

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is very amusing. Even McCain is bright enough to realize that he may lose due to the Iraq war. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8V1I6PO0ROCKY RIVER, Ohio (AP) — John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't, "then I lose. I lose," the Republican said.

He quickly backed off that remark.

"Let me not put it that stark," the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. "Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the county both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security."

"If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.' But I don't think there's any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added. "Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."

The five-year-old Iraq conflict already is emerging as a fault line in the general election, with the Arizona senator calling for the U.S. military to continue its mission while his Democratic opponents urge speedy withdrawal.

While most Republicans still back the war, many independents and Democrats don't. That presents a significant challenge for McCain and an opportunity for either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McCain acknowledged the war will be "a significant factor in how the American people judge my candidacy."

The lead Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has consistently backed the war although he's long criticized the way it was waged after the Saddam Hussein's fall. He was an original proponent of President Bush's troop-increase strategy, having called for more forces on the ground for several years. Last spring, McCain went all in on the war by embracing it as Bush took heat for boosting troop levels to quell violence.

"We can fail in Iraq," McCain said Monday in an Associated Press interview. But, he added: "I see a clear path to success in Iraq." He defined that as fewer casualties and Iraqi troops taking over security to allow U.S. forces to return home. "All of us want out of Iraq, the question is how do we want out of Iraq," he added.

McCain has signaled that he plans to make Iraq and national security a major part of his general election campaign. Daily, he accuses both Obama and Clinton as wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender." Democrats, for their part, are arguing that McCain's candidacy is simply a continuation of Bush's "failed" policies. They have seized on a previous McCain remark in which he suggested that U.S. troop presence — at some level — could extend 100 years or more.

[Capitalist]

Yes. It is clear that bush lied about the reasons for the war in iraq. These lies are well documented and even more documentation will be coming out before the election. I would love to see Mccain try to defend the bush lies about wmds and the reasons for the war in Iraq. It would be fun to watch Obama tear McCain up on these lies.

BTW, attacking McCain and bush on these lies is also good politics. Several polls show that a decent majority of the American public know that bush lied about Iraq and a number of polls show that a good majority of Americans do not believe that the war in Iraq was worth the killed soliders and money expended. bushies may not like these numbers but the American public (at least the majority of the american public who are intelligent) know that the Iraq war was based on lies and was wrong.


Please provide the proof of lies. Try to remember to look up lie in the dictionary first.

Bush lied? Yawn...

[Capitalist]

You are talking to the wrong person here. I never thought that bush made the case for invading Iraq. I have been against the invasioin from day one and was never convinced by even Powell's presentation to the UN.

The concept that Saddam would give wmds to Bin Ladin was just plain stupid and even the bogus NIE relied on by bush came to that conclusion. The crazy libertarians at the Cato Institute wrote some very good white papers (position papers) on why the US should invade and had some really compelling analysis as to why it was stupid to believe that Saddam even if he had WMDs would give these wmds to terrorists or use such wmds other than in connection with an invasion of Iraq by Iran or the US. This was the same conclusion that was in the bogus NIE that bush used to sell the war in Iraq at the end of such document (evidently Bob Graham of Florida was one of the few people who read that far and understood what this conclusion meant).

A number of Democrats voted against the IWR for good reasons. One of the strenghts of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton is that he did not vote for the war in Iraq and can make a stronger case as to why going to the war was a bad idea in the first place. The fact that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq will be an issue in the general election and Senator Obama is well suited to take McCain to task for the lies used by bush to sell this stupid war.


Obama could not vote for or agains tthe war in Iraq numbnutz he was still a state Senator taking complaints about dogs pissing in his constituents yards when that vote was taken.

[Capitalist]

Yeah I don't think you are hearing me YDT. Or you just want to post your opinion one more time. :roll

You and the OP are suggesting that he will just sit around pointing fingers in McCain's face. That isn't defending his position. I understand you may have ideas on how to fix this issue but I don't hear them from Obama. I hate tattlers and to me this is just tattling. He should come up with real ideas on how to fix it and campaign with them rather than sneering and pointing at another. Sounds like a lot of big show and distraction.

Very disappointing that politics has turned into this kind of banter. :kickcan

I think it would be a great idea for Obama to bring up his lack of experience. :snicker

Oh he has ideas. On many issues he has ideas on both sides of the issue.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Please provide the proof of lies. Try to remember to look up lie in the dictionary first...You are far too silly and poorly informed to play with me on this subject. I will be glad to bury you but lets start with a legal definition of what is false and misleading statement (a lie to layperson) http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-5.html
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, .....
To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading... This is the legal standard for a lie and under that standard bush told numerous lies about Iraq. Let take the silly mobile weapon labs for example. The bushies used this claim to justify the invasion even though they knew that (a) the sole source of such claim was a drunk held by the Germans who had never even been interviewed by a US intelligence agent, (b) the Germans had warned the US that this source (codename Curveball) was a liar and was unreliable, (c) the CIA head of intelligence in Europe warned Powell that the mobile weapon lab claim was bogus, and (d) the story told by curveball was dependent on a special factory that was suppose to service the mobile weapon labs and the US knew before the invasion and even before powell speech to the UN that (i) its own photos showed that the factory had a wall preventing the use in the manner described by curveball and (ii) the UN inspectors had actually inspected the factory and found that the description of the factory by Curveball was false.

I will be happy to bury with other facts if you want.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Obama could not vote for or agains tthe war in Iraq numbnutz he was still a state Senator taking complaints about dogs pissing in his constituents yards when that vote was taken.When the bushies were pushing the fear card, Senator Obama spoke out against the war and urged the Senate to reject the IWR. As such, he is in perfect position to debate mccain on this issue. Judgment is an important factor as to who should be commander in chief and I would prefer a person who had the sense to be against the war in Iraq compared to an idiot like mccain who thinks that the original decision was correct and who wants us to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.

[issac the dragon]

The simple fact is the American people know they were lied into war. And I don't think that they are too enarmoured by Obama's constant claim that Clinton bought the administrations lies. Most of the people did. To press his point too far, Obama must convince the American people they too are stupid.

[issac the dragon]

I would also like to point out that it is very easy to make up your mind about whether it is right to go to war when there will be no consequenses. Clinton had to vote her conscience, Obama had not one thing to lose if he was wrong. I was also against the war, even before it started but I am very aware that my feelings about it affected no one. I could not put my country at risk. Neither could Obama. He should shut up until he is called to account for his vote.

[Trueblue]

It is now known by well-informed people that Bush lied to the public in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is now known by well-informed people that Bush lied to the public in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.I notice that cappy has runned away from this thread. I do not blame him. It is clear that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq and only a fool like McCain would want to defend this position.

[issac the dragon]

It is now known by well-informed people that Bush lied to the public in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.

I have a serious problem with Bush. I believe every thing he says is a lie and everything anyone in his admin. says is a lie. They have to prove to me they are telling the truth and it is an uphill job. So I had no problem believing he was lying about WMD's. That doesn't make me better than anyone else. I simply don't give people my belief after they have lied to me twice. It is probably a handicap. The little boy did see a wolf afterall.

But I realize that most people automatically believe the government. Its like believing your own father. You just do it. I don't blame people who did so. And frankly I get irratated when I hear Obama do it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

After the 4,000th death and recent poll numbers, mccain's plan to run on a platform of a 100 more years of war in Iraq is not looking very bright. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/24/matthews-bush-third-term/On NBC’s The Chris Matthews Show yesterday, Matthews and his guests discussed how Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sounds “an awful lot like George Bush” when he talks about Iraq. At the beginning of the show, Matthews previewed the segment by asking, “Is it wise to tell voters he’s running for a third term of Bush’s war?”

To illustrate his point, Matthews aired footage of Bush and McCain making the same rhetorical arguments about Iraq this past Wednesday:“If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate and Iraq would descend into chaos.”
– President Bush, 3/19/08

VERSUS

“I believe that if we set a date for withdrawal, you will see chaos and genocide in the region.”
– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 3/19/08
During the segment, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell said that McCain was “not smart to make himself sort of a G.I. Joe candidate” because “a whopping 76 percent, in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, said they want a candidate who has policies different than President Bush.” “This country wants to move on from that,” said O’Donnell.76% of the US voters want a change and Mccain wants to deliver a third bush term. Those two concepts do not work together.

[issac the dragon]

Even so, the three of them are in a tie.

[AYFR]

After the 4,000th death and recent poll numbers, mccain's plan to run on a platform of a 100 more years of war in Iraq is not looking very bright. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/24/matthews-bush-third-term/76% of the US voters want a change and Mccain wants to deliver a third bush term. Those two concepts do not work together.
Talk about distorting peoples words
McCain: 100-years-in-Iraq remark distorted
"Of course, that comment of mine was distorted. Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said," McCain told a town- hall meeting at Rice University. "I was talking about American presence after the war."

Responding to a student who had criticized his 100-year remark, McCain added, "No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties."
http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_8400429


The student had referred to McCain's response at a New Hampshire town-hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain answered. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

[issac the dragon]

We are not in those countries as occupiers. We are there to defend them. At our expense. We defend every country in the world except our own. And all of those countries love it. They beg us to stay.

[Trueblue]

I think that the public understood McCain's words just fine. McCain wants a base in Iraq for the next few decades.

I would like to see us remove our bases in Germany and Japan, they create problems for us.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a twist on mccain's lies about the war in iraq. Now mccain is claiming that the war in Iraq did not interfer with the hunt for Bin ladin. Of course that is a total piece of fantasy. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/24/mccain-tora-bora/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) continues to deny that the Bush administration’s turn to Iraq in late 2001 had any effect on the battle at Tora Bora, according to the LA Times yesterday: “I know of no one who believes attention to Iraq at that point diverted our attention from Tora Bora,” McCain said. …

“We should have put more boots on the ground there to apprehend . Everyone agrees. But I have no reason to believe that because we urged attention to Iraq, it had any tactical effect on the battleground.”But according to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, even before the Tora Bora battle, Bush began meeting with Army Gen. Tommy Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq: On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. “Let’s get started on this,” Bush recalled saying. “[B]And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to.” …

Bush’s order to Rumsfeld began an intensive process in which Franks worked in secret with a small staff, talked almost daily with the defense secretary and met about once a month with Bush.Similarly, Michael Gordon, co-author of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, has reported that Franks, in charge of the battle, was upset about Bush’s turn to Iraq: I was at Tora Bora at that point, in December ‘01. The desire to have a war plan for Iraq has already been telegraphed to [General] Tommy Franks at Centcom. Franks is actually struggling with Tora Bora, with his unhappiness with the results in Afghanistan, just as he is on the eve of returning for a very important meeting at Crawford with the President. I think they made a very quick decision that in principle Iraq was next on the agenda.Reporter Christina Lamb, using Woodward’s book as her source, has said that “there was another reason for Washington’s reluctance to commit troops on the ground” at Tora Bora. According to Woodward, when Gen Tommy Franks received the top-secret message asking for an Iraq war plan within a week, he was incredulous. “They were in the midst of one war in Afghanistan, and now they wanted detailed planning for another? Goddamn,” Franks said, “What the f*** are they talking about?”Mccain is using the exact same lies as bush did in 2004. A vote for mccain is clearly a vote for more war and for a third term for bush

[Saguaro]

I am so sick of the lies

[Yellowdogtexan]

Bill Maher nailed Mccain this week in his New Rules New Rule: Old soldiers never die, they get young soldiers killed.

[Last] week John McCain said for the third time in two days that Iran, a Shiite stronghold, was training al Qaeda, a militant Sunni organization. That the Hatfields of the Muslim world would be working with the McCoys is so not true even Dick Cheney hasn’t said it. Now the press, which loves McCain because he feeds them barbeque, dismissed this as just one of those senior moments. Not to worry, he’s only going to have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

But it’s not just a gaffe, it’s what McCain really thinks. And therein lies the paradox of this campaign: McCain’s strength is really his weakness. He’s a warrior who’s dumb about war. ... [C]hapter three of The Art of War says, "Know thy enemy." And John McCain plainly doesn’t. He thinks the solution is our presence in the Middle East. No, the problem is our presence in the Middle East. That’s why I don’t care if John McCain is better than Bush on global warming or torture or campaign finance, because he’s exactly the same as Bush on the war. They both don’t get the same thing.

As long as we’re setting up shop in the heart of the Arab world, we’re not keeping America safer. Bin Laden goes ballistic over cartoons in Danish newspapers, and Goober and Grandpa want to put up a Hooters in Fallujah.

They don’t "hate us for our freedom," they hate us for our fiefdom.

---Bill Maher

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senator Hagel does not think that Mccain's campaign of running on Iraq is a good idea http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/hagel-mccain-facing-elect_n_94934.htmlThe Republican Party and its presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain are heading into a 2008 electoral buzzsaw with their continued support of the Iraq war, Sen. Chuck Hagel said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Thursday.

The country is still very sour on the war, the Nebraska Republican pressed, and support for candidates who want to stay the course is simply not there.

"I am concerned about the [party still holding on to Iraq as an issue]," said Hagel. "If for no other reason than the political factors here are quite obvious. This country has made a decision on Iraq, and as you see now in any poll, even a minimum of 25 percent of the registered Republicans cannot support the president's policy in Iraq. You take that with the independents and Democrats and you have anywhere between 60 and 70 percent who want out. So you can't politically sustain this and any party that uses this as an issue when they are going in the face of where America is, is not going to do very well politically. That is just the facts of life."Running on the platform of staying the course in Iraq is not a winner.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Mccain has staked his campaign on Iraq doing well and the surge working. Too bad that General Petreaeus is not backing him up on these claims http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/petraeus_we_havent_seen_any_li.phpPETRAEUS: It is very fair, Senator, and it's why I repeatedly noted that we haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.

[issac the dragon]

And there will never be a light at the end of the tunnel. And Clinton and Obama will both keep troops in Iraq indefinetly. They have said so. Maybe for a hundred years.

I hope this is not the only point the Dems are putting their bets on. Because the people in this country are smart enough to figure out there isn't that much difference there. The main difference is that McSame wants to keep fighting until the Iraqis give up, which isn't ever going to happen. They are not ever going to be a western style democracy. Haven't multiple English occupations and wars in Iraq taught us anything?

I personally wouldn't vote for any of the three based on their Iraq stratagy. When one of them says they will get out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people alone, they will have my vote.

[Yellowdogtexan]

mccain has staked his entire campaign on convincing the American voters that the war in Iraq is a good idea. Unless he can get the American people to agree to support this stupid and wasteful war, mcsame is in big trouble. It seems that mclame is not well here. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/24/record-high-63-percent-say-us-made-a-mistake-in-sending-troops-to-iraq/ new USA Today/Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans say “the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point.” Gallup notes that “majority opposition to the Iraq war is basically cemented."

Gallup adds, “The new high in Iraq war opposition is also notable because it is the highest ‘mistake’ percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States — surpassing by two points the 61% who said the Vietnam War was a mistake in May 1971.” mcstupid starts out with 63% of the American public against keeping the US in Iraq for the next 100 years and that opinion is basically cemented. Only a fool or a idiot would base his campaign on this policy and this is going to be fun to watch.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The results from this North Carolina GOP primary is not good news for mccain's plan to keep the US in Iraq for the next 100 years. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/antiwar_gop_congressman_wins_r.phpIn a sign that an anti-Iraq War position could now even be safe for Republicans, pro-withdrawal Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) was renominated last night over pro-war county commissioner Joe McLaughlin. With all counties reporting, Jones led by a margin of 59.5%-40.5%.

Of the three major anti-war Republicans in the House, only Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) was defeated in his primary, while Jones and Ron Paul were able to win renomination to their seats.

And in yet another indication of a lack of enthusiasm among the GOP base, only about 38,000 total votes were cast in this safe GOP district, despite a contested gubernatorial primary that could have theoretically boosted turnout.Mccain is running on a platform of keeping the US in Iraq for a 100 years or so and that platform is going to be a big flop.

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane is running on the platform of trying to convince the US population that the Iraq war was a good idea and that we should stay in Iraq for the next 100 years. It appears that mc :cane has lost the vote of the founder of the neo-con movement because of the Iraq war. http://au.news.yahoo.com/080527/21/170xi.htmlHe is one of America's most famous neo-conservatives and his ideas on the spread of democracy have informed the Bush administration's foreign policy.

But Francis Fukuyama, the author of The End of History and Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, is now a sharp critic of US President George W Bush and has even come out as a supporter of Democrat frontrunner Barack Obama for president.

Professor Fukuyama is particularly scathing about the Bush policy in Iraq but he says that regardless of who is elected to lead it next, the United States is about to undergo a significant transformation.....

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: Well, it is a little bit difficult. In my own thinking since I have to vote in this next election, I personally actually don't want to see a Republican re-elected because I have a general view of the way democratic processes should work and if your party is responsible for a big policy failure, you shouldn't be rewarded by being re-elected.

I think of all the Republicans, McCain in many ways is the most attractive but he is still is too, you know, he comes from the school that places too much reliance on hard military power as a means of spreading American influence.

I think in many ways, Hillary Clinton represents both the good and the bad things of the 1990s and there is something in the style of the Clintons that never really appealed to me and so I think of all the three, Obama probably has the greatest promise of delivering a different kind of politics.

ELEANOR HALL: That is a big shift for you, isn't it? To go from a registered Republican voter to an Obama supporter.

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: Yeah, but I think a number of people are doing that this year because I think the world is different at this juncture and we need a different foreign policy and there is this larger question about in American politics, I do think that we are at the end of a long generational cycle that began with Reagan's election back in 1980 and I think unless you have a degree of competition and alternation in power, certain ideas and habits are going to get too entrenched.This is the intellectual founder of the neo-con movement and he is advocating that since the republicans are responsible for such a large foriegn policy blunder (the Iraq war) that they should not be re-elected. If mc :cane can not sell the founder of the neo-con movement on the success of the Iraq war, he is going to have a hard time convincing the 70% of the American public who think that the war is a mistake.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Snotty Scotty has a book out that lays out how the war in Iraq was sold to the American public with lies. This book will help the Obama campaign in that it backs up the position that the war in Iraq was stupid from day one and the use of lies by the bushies will be used against mc :cane

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is some more on the possible effect of the new book by Scotty McClellan http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/28/1070158.aspx The news of Scott McClellan’s new book on President Bush -- first reported by the Politico’s Mike Allen -- guarantees one thing: There is NO CHANCE Bush fixes his perception problems in the public and the media anytime soon. He's a political pariah, pure and simple. In the book, according to reports, McClellan says that Bush “was not open and forthright on Iraq”; that the president sold the war through a "political propaganda campaign"; that he took a permanent campaign approach to governing; and that the White House mishandled Hurricane Katrina, both governmentally and politically. For McCain, the timing of the news of this book couldn’t have been worse. On the very day that the Arizona senator broke with Bush on nuclear proliferation, he not only held a closed-press fundraiser with the president (that produced just one photo-op), but also came news of the McClellan book. Now will come constant cable news chatter about the book, an interview with McClellan himself tomorrow on TODAY, as well as the inevitable questions from the traveling press corps following McCain…The war in Iraq will be an issue in the General Election and not a good one for mc :cane. The American public already knew that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq and that the war was not necessary. Now we have a bush insider confirming these facts and it will be fun to see mc :cane try to deal with these facts.

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane 's strategy is basically trying to convince the 70% of the American public who have made up their minds about Iraq that they are wrong. The trouble is that mc :cane appears to be clueless about what is going on in Iraq and keeps making material and significant mistakes about Iraq. This clip really lays out why mc :cane is dumb to make Iraq the key part of his campaign and then keep getting things wrong about Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1ZE8YiAz4o

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane's reliance of the Iraq war as a central part of his campaign is just stupid. He is making mistakes here and the war is a losing issue for the GOP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wD3z6wjOXE

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane is running for bush's third term on Iraq and so his policies are the same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=any3LY_zlqg The good news is that the American public have rejected such policies and so mc :cane is going to have to convince these voters that they are wrong.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a good video about mc :cane and Iraq including mc :cane admitting that he does not care what the American people think about the war in Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

[Yellowdogtexan]

Huffington has some good comments on how mc :cane haas staked his entire campaign on convincing American voters that the war in Iraq is a good idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpsr05X-v4U

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane is keeping to his plan of making the entire election about the war in Iraq and is hoping that the American people will change their minds and decide that the war was really a good idea http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07012008-1556942.htmlSen. John McCain said that he is willing to stake his presidential campaign, as well as his political career, on his support for the war in Iraq.

In an interview with reporters on the back of his campaign bus, the “Straight Talk Express” Monday afternoon, McCain said that even in retrospect he would still have voted to authorize the war, as he did in 2002.

“I think there's no question,” said the Republican's likely presidential nominee. “I owe too much to these young people who are serving there to let political considerations interfere with what I know is right.

“I believe the American people, over time, will side with me, but if they don't I'll accept that,” he said. “I'd much rather lose a political campaign than lose a war.”

A Time magazine poll released last week found that 57 percent of Americans felt that America was wrong to go to war with Iraq. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released two days earlier found that 67 percent of Americans believed that the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war for. This is going to be an interesting campaign. It is very hard to change peoples minds and so far mc :cane is doing a very poor job of showing how the war in Iraq was really a good idea

[Yellowdogtexan]

The trouble with the mc :cane strategy in Iraq is that mc :cane has been wrong and Senator Obama has been right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0LFK_40KpAThe war in Iraq was stupid from day one and has allowed our real enemy al qaeda to rebuild