Posted on 02/28/2008 7:00:23 AM PST by xzins
Just stick to the issues. Mr McCain called Obama on his idiotic statement about Al Kiada in Iraq. Obama countered with another idiotic statement and big media applauded him on his perspicacity. Yea, by all means stick to issues. Good luck with that.
I try to be, although I don't always succeed.
If so, can you point to on time in the article that McCain defended our President?
The point I was making, which is that r.o.s. characterized what McCain actually said, in terms which were clearly not supported by the words themselves.
Whether or not McCain defended the president or not, is irrelevant to that fact.
As I said: one need not agree with McCain's comments to recognize r.o.s's comments as intellectually dishonest.
No, I think that McCain is probably arrogant enough to think that he is going to win easily with the independent and moderate vote - forget the conservative vote. He knows the conservatives in the party are caring enough about our military that they are left with no choice but HIM - or so he seems to think. - The way he treated Cunningham was reprehensible. It was HIS idea that Obama’s full name was improper. If the guy had said HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, there would have been no problem. If no one is allowed to mention the TRUTH about these peoples’ political alliances when it is common knowledge, I can only deduct that McCain has no intention of making any effort to win . . he must think it will just happen as if by magic.
I’m a bit sick of McCain.
McCain may be in for a rude awakening if he thinks liberals are going to vote for him and he doesn’t need us conservatives. Liberals will vote for REAL diehard liberals, and never for a Republican even if he is trying hard to be a liberal. I’m about to the place where I do not intend to lose any sleep over McCain since he has apparently labeled me a bigot.
Oh please, cut the drama it does not work with me.
You are given evidence that McCain was championing the surge with news releases over a year old and you are fixated on the fact that McCain criticized one of your beloved talk show hosts and disagreed on how Bush and Rumsfeld were handling the war.
Again you show the foolishness of believing that not hurting the feelings of certain individuals is much more important than doing what it takes to actually win the war.
The fact remains that McCain was right and History will judge Bush as an abysmal war leader. We are one election result from losing a war that should already have been wrapped up.
BTW, Gen Petraeus would laugh at your assertion that Bush and Rummy did not want a better plan to counter the insurgency,
Sure they wanted a "better plan". Obama wants a "better plan". So do Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich.
A child that is going to write to Santa Claus to bring him victory in Iraq wants a "better plan".
But, which plan worked?
The plan that McCain was championing against bitter opposition from 82% of public opinion and which Rumsfeld was opposed to.
The historical record documents the fact that Rumsfeld rejected the idea of The Surge.
Deal with the historical facts and not your hero-worshipping emotions, sweety.
*******
*******
Since we are on the same side here, I must comment that if I was trying to be dishonest I would not have posted his words and my words.
And make no mistake, we are on the same side, whether you or McCain want us or not.
Are you nuts? McCain is ahead in the polls. Florida isn’t even in play. And you want to ruin our chance for victory by nominating some anti-American like TehRon who would be absolutely steam rolled in November?
Nevertheless, one cannot square what McCain actually said in the snippets you posted, with the way you characterized it. And one cannot read the entire interview, without realizing the selectivity of the quotes you posted and then mischaracterized.
And make no mistake, we are on the same side, whether you or McCain want us or not.
Sure, we're on the same side -- and I want my side to be intellectually respectable. Taking quotes out of context and scurrilously mischaracterizing them is one of the things that is killing the conservative movement right now. Nobody who's not already drinking the kool-aid is going to agree with what you said. You can't get to those insults from the text of the interview.
If you want to challenge what McCain said, that's great. But you've got to do it honestly.
It will be the moderates who determine the victor in November not liberals and not conservatives.
It does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
I feel poked in the eye by BOTH of them, it’s just that McCain’s stick is a bit sharper.
Yes :)
I can all day long, or all week long post articles, transcripts from Gen Petraeus testimony (stating that Rumsfeld wanted his plan), and all the other Generals who were there, or, we can wait for History Channel to debate for years on end if a giant footprint and invasion would have worked better, if we should have shot looters, if the State Dept should have come in, the UN, or an American General should have taken charge, and a million other hindsight decisions, we could go on and on.
We shall see how President McCain runs Iraq, (after all the hard work has been done), especially if he has a “maverick” of his own, running to the MSM and the DNC to bite his ankles at every move, working with the enemy to lower support for our mission, and working to lower President McCain's poll numbers.
Of course this brilliant CIC will have to also fulfill his promise to Americans that the government will also fight "global warming", his promise that he and his government will control the weather and the earth's temperature too.
LOL, now that is really a plan and a man one can "worship", hon.
I want to let the convention know that McCain has an awful lot of opposition.
He agrees with the interviewer, plan and simple. He believes GWB is a human rights abuser, a polluter, has “squandered” US credibility and “world love”, he said it clear as day.
I can understand that you want to trust him, and don’t want to see or believe that he agrees with the Dims, and thinks just like them. His heart and his gut are with them.
There were a dozen ways he could answered those questions, and hundreds of ways he could have handled the press over all these years, like Rudy, Fred, or Duncan have proven for the last 8 years.
The evidence is in his words and deeds, in the past and daily.
Succinct, clear and to the point. Good post.
So, you a four point Calvinist or a one point Arminian? ;-)
Depraved: yep.
Unconditional election: yep, but through the absolute indivisibily of God’s power and knowledge.
Limited Atonement: yep, see above.
Irresistible grace: yes, preveniently. nope, regeneratively.
Perseverence: yep.
I guess that’s about 3.5 out of 5. :>)
When you let the adversary define the rules of conflict, you loose. In war, in politics, and in business.
This little incident tells me that not only will McCain loose, he will loose big.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.