Mc Cain poll

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Mc Cain poll

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:56 pm

Never said Clark was Obama's Veep. He was a strong runner as long as he kept his mouth closed.

For the record Mark Warner, Ted Strickland and Jim Webb announced today they would not be candidates for Vice President. That's almost the entire first string. I wonder what they know about Obama and his chances....

Not jumping ship at anything like this rate in the GOP, not that anyone would notice for the nearly complete absence of coverage of the McCain candidacy by the press and media.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Charlestonguy » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:58 pm

Werner wrote:Back on topic...

Image

Humm pretty cool...didn't know Clark was his VP, you must have the inside track.
Bet McFlipper wishes he had George in the back seat of his jet.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:12 pm

Back on topic...

Image

Re: Mc Cain poll

by chuck » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:17 pm

Werner wrote:
In my world, victory is defined by the absence of an enemy and the installation of a more-or-less stable, more-or-less democratic government. I never expected Iraq to become a vassal state of the USA.

Such noble selflessness. Let me wipe away the tears.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:08 pm

Chuck, I get it. You don't want the war to end, or at least in any way which will redound to the credit of Republicans.

In my world, victory is defined by the absence of an enemy and the installation of a more-or-less stable, more-or-less democratic government. I never expected Iraq to become a vassal state of the USA, and the price of the war is certainly much more than you have quoted, especially in human terms, but I would say the military objectives have been achieved. I don't think the administration had much in the way of diplomatic plans or goals, so escaping with our underwear in the diplomatic sense counts as success.

I'm not sure I want a continuing US presence in Iraq. That presence will debase the legitimacy of any government elected there. I think the bases we have in Qatar, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. For the rest of the area, the targets fall within range of carriers. That is a far better option.

I don't know what country you root for at home, Chuck, but I'd like America to win this war and come home. In that the number of bombings and shootings is at about the "normal" level for the region, and the Shiites and Sunnis are arguing in the government chambers rather than shooting each other, I'd say we've "won" in any sense of the word. You can say otherwise if you want.

Hopefully, we won't do this again, or at least something like this without a clear plan, objectives and exit strategy.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by chuck » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:54 pm

Werner wrote:!
McCain can say he was right all along and the surge - which he supported months before the President or anyone else - worked and we won the war.

GOT THAT? WE WON THE WAR!
Let's see, we've spent $300 billion, not to mention paying the opportunity cost of having our military force stuck there. We've surged our forces to make Iraq safe for the Shiites, and yet we still have to go begging hat in hand to those very Shiites for some favors such as basing rights, military jurisdiction, only to be perfunctorily denied. And then we are told in the most blunt and public way possible, again by the very same Shiite government we installed, to Get Out!, like we are some washed up colonial power such as Portugal. This when we are having trouble with our man Maliki's fellow Shiites in Iran and can really use a few bases in Iraq and a show of support from Maliki.

I don't know, Werner, but in my world, Victory is not correlated to the total collapse of options.

If this constitute McCain being "right", I hate to imagine what this country must go through before you admit that McCain might have been wrong.

All the surge did was to postpone until after the election such outward menifestation of our failure as to be persuasive even to the red necks. But our strategic situation, if anything, worsened as a result our surge reduce the the power of Sunni insurgency and therefore our leverage on a Shiite government in Iraq. We made life easier for "our man", who now shows that he is perfectly willing to say No! to each and everything we ask.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:23 pm

Charlestonguy wrote:Five years and counting of Mission Accomplished.
That's the other guy.

A ticker tape parade of US forces through Baghdad on their way to the airport is going to have an entirely different effect on the American psyche. Little Iraqis holding American flags and shouting "Thank you, America" will be very cute as they were in the Kurdistan ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C8ktHUBD0s

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Charlestonguy » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:18 pm

Werner wrote:
Charlestonguy wrote: "BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?
I have gone as far back as Taft but I cannot think of another who served but did not go into combat.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues on this board that I said the date was approaching when Prime Minister Maliki would say "Thanks for the help, now go home. Good-bye". The only uncertainty at the time is whether this would come in October or before.

We have accomplished our mission.

McCain can say he was right all along and the surge - which he supported months before the President or anyone else - worked and we won the war.

GOT THAT? WE WON THE WAR!

Someone needs to tell Harry "This war is lost" Reid and the rest of the Democrats who required "a willing suspension of belief" to listen to General David Petraeus. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and retire to a quiet place to raise cabbages and turnips.
Chill Werner you�re going to blow a fuse.
Maliki knows full well the end must come or he will not retain control.

"Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shiite city of Najaf."

Five years and counting of Mission Accomplished.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:44 pm

Charlestonguy wrote: "BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?
I have gone as far back as Taft but I can think of only one who served but did not go into combat.
Truman was an artillery officer in WW.I.
Ike, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force.
Kennedy, PT boats.
Johnson, one mission in a B-26 in the Pacific, for which he received the Silver Star.
Nixon did air tasking for the Navy on Bougainville, within yards of the Japanese lines.
Ford was aboard a CVL, 1944-5.
Carter served in nuclear submarines
Bush I flew Avenger torpedo bombers.
Bush II flew F-102s for the ANG. The F-102 was technically a bomber interceptor for the cold war, so it is fair to say he served in a combat environment, but saw no combat. The F-102, like it's contemporary USAF supersonic fighters was a deathtrap. That's why USAF pilots loved the USN F-4 Phantom so much they demanded it for the USAF.

So, I'll give you Bush II by default.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues on this board that I said the date was approaching when Prime Minister Maliki would say "Thanks for the help, now go home. Good-bye". The only uncertainty at the time is whether this would come in October or before.

We have accomplished our mission.

McCain can say he was right all along and the surge - which he supported months before the President or anyone else - worked and we won the war.

GOT THAT? WE WON THE WAR!

Someone needs to tell Harry "This war is lost" Reid and the rest of the Democrats who required "a willing suspension of belief" to listen to General David Petraeus. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and retire to a quiet place to raise cabbages and turnips.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Charlestonguy » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:20 pm

Werner wrote:
Charlestonguy wrote: 11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?
Carter was one.

Obama said the other day he would order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the Iraq War, ignorant of the fact that the JCS is an advisory body with no command authority. What a knock.
"BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Lesforan » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:50 am

He also thinks there are 59 states in this country.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:35 am

Charlestonguy wrote:
Lesforan wrote:Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.
11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?
Carter was one.

Obama said the other day he would order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the Iraq War, ignorant of the fact that the JCS is an advisory body with no command authority. What a knock.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Charlestonguy » Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:41 am

Lesforan wrote:Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.
11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?

Re: Mc Cain poll

by chuck » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:03 am

No one in whom narcissism is under some degree of control would ever seek elected national office.

But Clark, however astute he is in enumerating the necessary characteristics of a commander in chief, is himself a loose canon who in the past had shown serious symptoms of mission obsession at the expense of the broader picture. As NATO commander during the Balkan operations he had issued some operational orders with diplomatic implications that hugely exceeded his authority, was very likely against the broader objectives of the American administration, and led to essentially a mutiny from his British deputy with the words "I am not going to start WWIII today for your sake, sir". This episode is believed to have led to his dismissal. I don't think he can be trusted with acting prudently, thoughtfully, and within his duly granted authority as commander in chief or secretary of defense. He had shown signs of inclination to take enormous, spur of the moment risks for relative small gains.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:31 pm

Lesforan wrote:Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.
Charlie Brown is a more experienced candidate than Obama. He is also not under a cloud of suspicion for his role as a close friend, underling and facilitator of the dealings of a man recently found guilty of multiple felonies.

As far as Clark, I think the written and spoken opinion of the then serving Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense that Clark was unfit for his role in NATO as a result of "integrity and character issues" would be sufficient to keep him from the campaign trail. To believe that would not be thrown in his face any time he ran for public office is fantasy. He cannot order the release of his official jacket without revealing what General Shelton meant by that as well. So, his political career, except as a bomb-tosser, is over.

He may be hoping for a Vice Presidential slot, but that is only because he has deep psychological issues of narcissism.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Lesforan » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:15 pm

Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Werner » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:23 pm

Everyone seems to be comparing Clark to McCain. Clark is not the candidate.

Do you know how much "senior qualitative leadership experience" Obama has by Clark's own measure? None, unless throwing old black ladies out of their slum apartments for Tony Rezko counts....

Do you know how much Senate experience Obama had when he declared for office? 143 days. McCain had about 25 years in Congress at that same moment, on top of his 26 years or so in the Navy.

One final thing. If Clark thinks commanding a carrier bomber squadron does not offer the required seasoning and training experience, he has not met enough Naval pilots and aviators.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by chuck » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:04 pm

RNfanDan wrote:
chuck wrote:.

What motives one subjectively attribute to Clark is a trivial thing next to whether his statements are objectively true. The truth value of no part of statement falls below the level of being extremely defensible in any disinterested analysis, and most parts are unimpeachably true.
Your logic parallels that of those defending Charles Manson. All of these facts are objectively true: * He was NOT at the scene of the Polanski Estate murders. * He did NOT shoot or stab any victims there. * He was nowhere near the scene of the crime during its commission. All statements are extremely defensible, and all are unimpeachably true.

So, by extension, should anyone performing a "disinterested analysis" of Manson's conviction conclude he is wrongfully imprisoned?

If you can not see the flaw in your "parallel" all by yourself, then it would be quite beyond anyone's power to enlighten you.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by RNfanDan » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:43 pm

chuck wrote:.

What motives one subjectively attribute to Clark is a trivial thing next to whether his statements are objectively true. The truth value of no part of statement falls below the level of being extremely defensible in any disinterested analysis, and most parts are unimpeachably true.
Your logic parallels that of those defending Charles Manson. All of these facts are objectively true: * He was NOT at the scene of the Polanski Estate murders. * He did NOT shoot or stab any victims there. * He was nowhere near the scene of the crime during its commission. All statements are extremely defensible, and all are unimpeachably true.

So, by extension, should anyone performing a "disinterested analysis" of Manson's conviction conclude he is wrongfully imprisoned?

Wesley Clark's motives lie far deeper than his statement, and he should-- like Manson-- be held accountable by intent and motive, despite the factual truth of his utterance.

Re: Mc Cain poll

by Lesforan » Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:57 pm

Chuck,

I think it is fair to compare McCain's experience to Obama's. McCain had an opportunity to be released from his prison because of his family connections. He refused. I think that says a great deal about McCain.

What comparable deed has Obama done?

Top