McCain: Then And Now
Then: Speaking to the Council of Foreign Relations on April 22, 2004:
Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”
McCain’s: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”
Now: McCain has criticized anyone calling for a timetable.
In speeches, town hall meetings, interviews and campaign commercials, McCain has said a timetable would provide terrorists the knowledge of how long they have to wait until American troops are gone. He has repeatedly said that setting a date for withdrawal would lead to “chaos, genocide and we will be back with greater sacrifice.”
How can we believe any Republican when they constantly lie or change the reason we are there? I don’t understand these people! If we don’t leave Iraq when they want us out, it’s an occupation. There is no other way to see it. This administration has ruined this country and makes us all look horrible. It’s unfortunate that so many have to die for the arrogance and stubborness of the monsters in the White House…
July 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
You people are simpletons. You’re expecting the situation to have been so static over these years that the same analysis still apply, unchanged?
You idiots would have been a sight to see during the Civil War.
“Hey! Republicans said the Civil War was not about slavery and the liar Lincoln said he was not fighting to free slaves.. and look what he has done.. he freed them! Liar liar”
And in any case.. those two quotes don’t compare. The townhall quotes are about American-set dates of withdrawal.. they’re about American policy questions… not about how to react to an Iraqi demand we leave.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Vince aka “stoo- nod” Iraq does not care about american policy and consider it a miracle if Iraq doesnt throw out democracy/new purple finger government. When you have neighbors like seria Iran pakistan and MY favorite WOLF in sheeps clothing Saudi Arabia. Democracy has no chance in hell to survive.
BTW the civil war was not about slavery, African american soldiers fought the war side by side with the white/caucasion soldiers. meaning they were free already
July 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Vinnie Pee is so wise…
July 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
The Left can always be counted on to do what FuRyUs had just done.
They’re like babies
July 8th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“All yous do is bitch and moan and then masturbate…”
I’d say that qualifies as taking the first shot.
“You’re expecting the situation to have been so static over these years that the same analysis still apply, unchanged?”
So obviously the response to a fluid, dynamic, changing situation is to stay the course.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I guess what you’re saying is, the “Afghanistan 1990s Ignore them all” Policy worked so well we need to go back to that.
Oh wait.. a proper response to you would be to find some quote someone like Kerry made, and then respond like that.
You dont actually care about the underlying issue, you want to vindicate/anti-vindicate (I made up a word) politicians because of party politics.
Politics is not my motivator. Of course that doesn’t mean I wont repsond to political comments by others. Nor does it mean that I am never political.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:58 am
My oft-quoted masturbation reference and second person plural pronoun is not on this page.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am
I don’t care what page the masturbation ref was on. My point is that talking crap is not the way to make friends or to encourage others at this blog to take your opinions seriously.
My other point is that I can indulge in sweeping generalizations too. And I guess sweeping generalizations sums up a lot of what passes for political discussion.
Back during the Clinton era, no one wanted to hear about war. It’s unfortunate, but that’s how it was, and this is probably why our leaders got caught with their hands in their pockets, and a lot of dumbfounded looks on their faces.
I think a proper response to 9/11 would have been to hunt down, “smoke out” and capture the people who attacked us. That hasn’t happened. We could argue about the alleged 20th hijacker, and various people captured or killed here and there, but Osama’s still out there, and so is his Egyptian friend.
And when Bush says that Osama doesn’t matter I’m hearing a lame, pathetic excuse for failure.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
And when Bush says that Osama doesn’t matter I’m hearing a lame, pathetic excuse for failure.
No. What you’re hearing is seemingly contradictory things that aren’t.
Obama’s historical role was to be a catalyst for a Global Jihad. His mission was to move the Muslim past the stage of reacceptance of the obligation of Jihad into the actual doing of Jihad.
In these areas the question is, does Osama not being killed still matter:
- Lesson the inculcation of the Jihad in Muslims
NO. The ball is now rolling on its own
- Prevent Muslims from engaging in Jihad against the US
NO. The ball is now rolling on its own, plus it was never a thing exclusive to Osama
- Apprehend and bring to justice all those responsible for past attacks on America
YES. Obviously he’s still out there and he needs to die for what he has done.
When folks such as yourself reveal that you either are not aware of these different roles or don’t care you are really missing the big picture. Why you guys do this I’ll never know.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Obviously he’s still out there..”
Fail.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Anonymous,
You’re correct about the Civil War regarding slavery, however, by the time black soldiers stood on the field of battle the outcome was already obvious, and the war was near an end. The free black soldiers were Union soldiers who rarely fought along side white Union soldiers.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm