One of McCain's sons enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduating from high school. He is there right now. McCain never mentions that because he doesn't want to draw attention to his son and put his son and his fellow Marines in more danger. I'm sure the terrorist scum would love to kill the son of a US Senator/presidential candidate.

And then there is the issue of just doing what's right. Something young McCain has learned and is living and something his father paid a high price to accomplish.
I say this with all due respect.
I cannot think of a time in which we have three candidates who are completely unqualified to lead the United States in these dangerous times.
In a contest of the lesser of three evils, one has to consider McCain, but it is not a consideration many are easy with. Nor am I.

One of my Democrat buddies said it best: "Only the Democrats can lose this election. This Obama is going to be a disaster whether or not he beats McCain. Obama is full of idealistic nonsense."

"Yes We Can", yes we can what? what does he plan to do in office? what does he stand for? what on earth is he talking about..."

Even democrats appear to have common sense this time around.

You mean McCain, who stands against the GI Bill because he, umm, supports the troops.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/mccain-who-missed-critical-vote-on-gi.html

ulianov~ ask yourself this question: why is it the dhimmicrats are putting up this legislation now, when any other year they would and HAVE cheerfully voted against it?

Otter. Asking ulianov that question is just mean! Especially so early in the morning. I eagerly anticipate his answer,though.
This seems to be a comman complaint among all parties at one time or another,"you send us to war,but you don't send your own kids".

Let me qualify this by stating that I cannot stand GWB and I was against the Iraq war from the get go.

If Osama bin Obama becomes the next president of the USA, Canada(read Ontario) is going to be in a bad spot. He is a petty, pandering protectionist who will owe his union buddies plenty. His first target will be all of those lovely imports coming in from Canada.

So, leftarded moonbats, be careful what you wish for. Ontario is already down on one knee. Obama bin Commie would finish Ontario off.

*
of course, what would mccain... unlike general obama...
apart from being shot out of the vietnamese sky and
spending all those years at the hanoi hilton...
know about the military?

*

The moonbat ideology says: in order to support the troops there should be no troops at all or keep them home in case someone attacks you. That is all.

BARACK OBAMA COMMANDER IN THIEF

So,
Does Cindy Sheehan support the troops because her son served, and died, in Iraq? It's not about whether one has progeny serving in Iraq or not. If someone with similiar ideological views has a kid in Iraq they have more credibility than someone who has opposing ideological views? That is the worst kind of Machiavellian distortion.

Lastly, 'commitment to the troops' could, even if it creates cognitive dissonance for many, be advocation for policies that keep the, in this case, U.S. safer--even if that means troop withdrawel.

Joseph Biden (sen. from Delaware) has a son in Iraq (or did have him 'in-theater')...when he questions McCain's policy-which he soundly does-is he more credible? less credible?

Garbage like this leads to conflagration.

Prime,

No point splitting hairs. Barack is messing up and likely regrets his political gaff.

He also messed up by saying,

** all those people in the Midwest, you’ve got to have compassion for them because they’re clinging to their guns and their Bibles.**

Did he reject the whole Midwest?

He can*t be that stupid, so let*s assume he is just exhausted. = TG

McCain opposes the GI Bill for practical purposes, not because he doesn't support the troops.

The current bill says you get full-paid college for only 3 years of service...the concern is this will encourage service men and women to abandon the service after 3 years, rather than stay.

The concern seems to be a very practical one to me and should be voted down. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in training for just three years of service...not enough return on investment.

I think remarks noted are a hint of what inexperienced Obama faces in the real thing - a presidential election. He seems to be a typically inexperienced person, who looks at situations without context and declares he will make it better. He doesn't provide specifics because he doesn't understand the underlying issues and nuances.

While I, like Kingstonlad, don't think much of GWB and disagreed with invasion of Iraq (containment working just fine, though future military action with Saddam was inevitable, but we gave excuse to basest elements of Islam to justify their idiotic and anti-God violence), Obama is wrong to think US can just pull out now. He doesn't seem to understand that victory is within sight, and his approach will ensure loss. His notions about healthcare are ludicrous, and I understand he supports Kyoto (or some close derivative). His lack of experience (like being involved in decisionmaking process) leads him to simplistic notions of "let's be nice and negotiate, then everything will be alright). It's a nice earnest wish, but totally unrealistic, with ideological agendas and truly dangerous despots abounding.

I doubt very much he will be able to capture the imagination of the American people; they are unlikely to trust the keys to the White House to such an inexperienced man who is not being anywhere near specific enough about his vision and agenda.

No, it's not because he is black, he's inexperienced and utopian; that's his problem which the GOP machine will exploit to the fullest in election. They're just keeping their powder dry for now, but the gloves come off soon and Obama will wilt under the pressure, IMO.

"Does Cindy Sheehan support the troops because her son served, and died, in Iraq? It's not about whether one has progeny serving in Iraq or not. If someone with similiar ideological views has a kid in Iraq they have more credibility than someone who has opposing ideological views? That is the worst kind of Machiavellian distortion."

Prime:

This statement is correct(keep in mind McCain doesn't mention this), but you can not support the troops if you do not support the war they are fighting. You can disagree with what the general manager does in the off-season for your favorite sports team; but, when the puck drops or when the ball is kicked off you stop with your criticism and you cheer for your team.

This isn't a perfect analogy but it seems to work okay. The real issue WRT troop support IMO is that both sides of the house voted almost unanimously to invade Iraq. The anti Iraq war strategy applied by the Dem' is disingenuous, it has nothing to do with victory or national security. It is about beating down the GOP and winning the White House. That is why the right accuse the left of not supporting the war, but you lefties already know this.

"McCain has the son in Iraq."

loose lips sink ship, dumbass.

st
in
ky
lu
vin.
blog
spot.
com

KEviekev

Shamrock,

Your detailed painting of Obama seems very much bang on.

His past friends and co-horts are not going to help him float long either. = TG

"McCain opposes the GI Bill for practical purposes, not because he doesn't support the troops.

The current bill says you get full-paid college for only 3 years of service...the concern is this will encourage service men and women to abandon the service after 3 years, rather than stay.

The concern seems to be a very practical one to me and should be voted down. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in training for just three years of service...not enough return on investment"

Sounds like you don't support the troops. I cant believe you can put a value on their sacrifice.
If those words came out of a Democrat you would be all over it....for shame.

Think about things a bit, ROC, before you respond. If you run a business and give employees free college training for three years of working for you, you're going to have staff stay for only three years...human nature.

The army needs those servicemen and women to stay for longer than 3 years or you have an inexperienced and expensive army.

I (and presumably McCain and the US Army) are happy to pay for college...but after more than 3 years of service. Please note that Bush, McCain and the Pentagon were pushing an alternate bill with an extended service time.

How, exactly, is that "not supporting the troops"? What is so magical about 3 years as opposed to, say, 5 years? If 3 years means you support the troops, then why not cut it to 1 year and REALLY support the troops?

You support the troops best by giving them comrades with more, not less, experience.

Come on...think about it.

^^^^
Well if I ran a business I would think i could get an even better employee by offering an even stronger benefit package.

How about supporting the troops by getting them best co-workers you can find.

Come on think about it.

Play’nWitYoMomma,

I apologize for the delay in my reply. I considered your comment and find, in all candor, prima facia, it to be malignant. Therefore, I suggest we operate to remove the cancer or, in the least, shed light on a darkened avenue of thought.
It is impossible, you contend, to support the troops but not the war. I think that is a common fallacy. A ‘soldier’ is a person, a mom; a father, a daughter, a son, a brother, and many are friends of mine. A soldier is the tool of implementation of a states doctrine (for the sake of argument). A ‘war’ is usually a political manifestation on behalf of one or all-warring entities. While not entirely accurate, for the sake of discussion, war is the implementation of policy. I do not then understand how my disagreement with policy can be translated by you into a lack of supporting the troops.
To take your premise a step further. (Again a ‘nation state’ for the sake of argument. Although I can make similar arguments via terrorists organizations, in this contextual milieu, but, lets not do a lobotomy…lets just do some ablation.). What is a nation of people, say a democracy, to do when the constituents would find themselves in a situation where some policy makers declared war and the soldiers went to war and the war was clearly unjust? I can tell you what your position is—“Nothing” why can I say that? Because you allow only for declarations of war to be declared by clairvoyants. There is no room for mistakes because there is no room to question a mistake. Perhaps you might even suggest ‘vote them out of office’--that one is common. Sadly, you allow little room for constituents barring them being wards of the state, mindless automatons, friends of Orwellian animals.
I had similar difficulties with your sports analogy and we are entirely in accord when you wrote, “this isn't a perfect analogy. “ I could not agree more! I am experiencing a certain…hmm, what I would call ‘loathing’ as regards using a sports metaphor when individuals are dying—many of whom are ‘spectators’ (civilians).
Nevertheless, to go with the sports metaphor. It is quite common for fans-avid fans-to disagree with the GM both on and off-season. Additionally, it is not unheard of for a coach, a GM, a line coach, to make changes during season. e.g. the opposing team is using a different defense, perhaps there was an injury to a player, perhaps, even, a coach takes a step back and says ‘damn, this play book sucks’. Do you know how many blogs exist for sporting constituents to rant, moan, and criticize their team? DURING SEASON? Simply open the Vancouver Sun and read Iain MacIntyre “Canucks general manager fired”…hmmm….someone must not have liked his strategy for sporting war…
Rick Tocchet, famously said, "There are certain things about my game I don't want to change, but I think it's about time that I realized I can't fight every battle.
Three hundred minutes in penalties is way too many. Way too many." Perhaps he even said that in-season.
I have to be brief with your last paragraph—although, it warrants a much lengthier retort—there is an anti-Iraq war strategy? Is that the strategy that reflects the polling that 70%+ of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war? What is that sound I hear? Oh, it is democracy! So, the Dems. are disingenuous and have no interest in “victory” (which I would love for you or McCain to define... hmm, has McCain done that?) or “national security.” Have you seen reports by the IAEA, the national intelligence estimate (in the USA an amalgam of more than 10 intelligence agencies), the U.N. (I know here is your chance to bash the U.N.), etceteras. That all have indicated decreased ‘national security’. As for your definition of victory-I await your reply.
Lastly, you have no idea if I am a lefty or a righty (hmmm, that does not sound good…well, I tuck left and hmm…yep, left on both fronts…). You have perhaps read a few postings and concluded I am a lefty? Perhaps, you could also divine for me when the HRC is going to clean house and ‘right’ that sinking ship? Respectfully, you disagree with me so you attempt to malign my ideological preferences in truest partisan form. We have entirely too many individuals such as you putting party above country.
As an aside, perhaps it is much easier to do that and much more difficult to find commonalities that work toward strengthening a country rather than bifurcating by playing to the ease of the LCD.

The sound of a rigid mind is the sound of a tree falling. The sound of a flowing mind is the sound of a reed adapting to the wind. I’ve no idea what that means, but it’s sweet.

Oh no you di'nt!

Prime:

While you are deciding if you are a righty or a lefty, you know what I'm doing, (Play'nWitYoMomma) and if you don't, you better ask somebody. Judging from the length of your response I figured you must be two handing it; but, upon closer inspection it appears you are just over compensating for your inadequacies.

War is the implementation of policy, policy that has been approved by the two American elected houses. At this time the burden of responsibility shifts from the populace to the professionals, and the buck stops at the Commander and Chief. The fact that you can not "understand how my disagreement with policy can be translated by you into a lack of supporting the troops." is not hitting the spot (I mean point). What is in question here, is your motives for wanting to change the strategy they you at one time supported. Without making too many accusations, it has been the Democrats,you, and the rest of the political left who have acted in partisan fashion. It is very interesting that so many who supported the Iraq invasion and now who now don't support the war belong to the aforementioned left. What you call candor I call bullshit, as is evident with your lack of consistency. So the left should feel free heckle the troops, accuse them of atrocities and analogize them to murderers. With support from and friends like that, who needs enemies?

I admit calling you a lefty was a little presumptuous, although you do quack like a duck. When you say "hmm, what I would call ‘loathing’ as regards using a sports metaphor when individuals are dying—many of whom are ‘spectators’ (civilians)." is quite long winded. May I suggest something a little more concise like " quack quack quack", that will do just fine. I can only hope that one day I am as enlightened as you that I can analogize in a way that is not beneath you. I am so focused on the pain I get from my knuckles dragging on the ground that I can not appreciate the difference between Tom Brady hanging in the pocket, and the loss Cindy Sheehan's family has endured.

You can not truly analogize war to sports, on this we agree; but, you can analogize victory and sports quite easily. It is common to go into the locker room at half time and make adjustments. This is expected, even if you are pounding the other team. The coaching staff is always looking to improve the game plan on the fly, it is a very fluid process(like war). One way to assure defeat is to pull all of your players off the field and go home before the game is finished. The "I'm against the Iraq war" crowd (you) are partisan in the worst way. Your representatives knowingly lie to their supporters with stories about pulling out of Iraq in 90 days (and canceling traded agreements) knowing full well that it will be disastrous.The simplicity of the message appeals to a large number of people, and the power of office is too seductive not to capitalize on this truth.

I can not speak for McCain, but in my mind victory in Iraq is three fold. Initially victory in Iraq was to remove a dictator(murderer) and the perceived threat of WMD programs (that's another topic), to punish them for harboring terrorist(set an example), and lastly prevent anymore aggressive actions by Iraq towards other American Allies, mission accomplished. Secondly, Iraq shall be a free democracy with the rule of law. It shall have a police force and a military that can maintain order, and protect its sovereignty from foreign aggressors. It will shine as a beacon in the middle east for what is possible. Finally the existence of allied military bases in Iraq and in the gulf to help promote stability in the region, to protect our allies and our own asses. JFK said America would "“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”. JFK speaks for me with this statement.

With respect to the war I think this quote is fitting:

The frog atop the stack of coins dares not jump.

Typo; Commander In Chief

Wow,
I"m surprised how much you distort. What shall we do with China? Help the people achieve democracy?

Playin,
Wow-the vitriol. Not only have you determined I’m a lefty but I have feelings of inadequacy? Indeed. I am looking for something substantive in your reply that warrants further articulation. IN the absence of such, I'll bullet-point so as to not waste anymore of my time. *the burden shifts from the populace to the professionals? (footnote-see constitution). *the strategy I at one time supported? Dude, the degree of 'projection' in this post is surreal and it limits discourse which is also unfortunate given you can clearly articulate a position. *Did u count the number of words in my post and develop some measure to ascertain inadequacy? What was the point of that? (It’s a rhetorical question). *candor and bullshit...dude, two different words w/ different definitions. If you call 'candor' 'bullshit' as you profess-I cannot assist you. *"knowing full well that it will be disastrous" (you were referring to the 90 days...your 'tense' is wrong). *Victory in Iraq is three-fold" Do you truly believe that the reason for invading Iraq was to initially remove Hussein? That's simply a distortion of the facts as they exist. It's untrue. WMD programs? Where is that evidence-could you site your sources please? Thank you. *Harboring terrorists? From what source are you aware that they did harbor terrorists prior to the invasion? *Iraq shall be a free democracy? I hope you are correct. I guess I wonder how you could, if you had any awareness of the history of the region, think that a free democracy can manifest? Take off your rose colored glasses as regards history of the region or read de Tocqueville so that you might better understand the elements that did go into the formulation for the democracy in the states to flourish. I would suggest to you that the Middle East as a whole is nowhere near establishing a democracy as you suggest with what appears to be a myopic sense of nationalism.

*Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy

No hard feelings Prime, I was just taking your lead and having a little fun. Without going into too much detail I will try to address some of your inquiries:

WRT Saddam:

FBI interviews(video) with Saddam were release for the public in 2008. In these interviews Saddam admits to falsifying documents to mislead the UN in an attempt to bluff Iran. Saddam was concerned about aggression by Iran so apparently kept up the facade of a WMD program. Was there a WMD program, or was Saddam lying? Time will tell on this one; but, one thing is sure, Saddam did not meet the UN weapons inspector requirements.

Follow this link for information WRT Saddam's Terror Philanthropy:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf

Candor vs. Bullshit: I am forever trying to improve my communication skills, obviously I did not do a good job WRT this statement since you took what I wrote literally, it was intended to be sarcastic. In your post you claimed to be writing in "all candor". I was challenging your intellectual honesty when when I said "what you call candor I call bullshit".

Very rarely am I accused of wearing "rose colored glasses" but I will accept your assertion. My hope is that freedom is and will be contagious. IMO the people of the region must desire the change that I am speaking of, but the example has to be there for the people of that region to see so that they ca aspire to it. That being said, if we can not succeed in Iraq, I am open to suggestions.(transfer of wealth?)

Tocqueville has been added to my reading list. I've been wasting my time with some fiction lately, as soon as I'm finished, I'm on it.TY

Try: "Gardens of the Moon" A Tale of the Malazan Book Of The Fallen by Steven Erikson

Its not political, but I'm sure you'll enjoy.

oops I missed one.

"projection"

I stand properly chastised. I suppose it is true that you may not have agreed with the invasion, but I was trying to speak in a larger context. My point is that approval for the invasion was accepted on both sides of the political spectrum. You may very well be a Republican who has changed his stance on the issue. This is for you to know, and since you haven't confirmed or denied my "projection" I suppose any assertions from me are purely speculation. If you would, I would still appreciate a response to my statement that it is the Democrats and the political left that are acting in a partisan fashion.

oops I missed one.

"projection"

I stand properly chastised. I suppose it is true that you may not have agreed with the invasion, but I was trying to speak in a larger context. My point is that approval for the invasion was accepted on both sides of the political spectrum. You may very well be a Republican who has changed his stance on the issue. This is for you to know, and since you haven't confirmed or denied my "projection" I suppose any assertions from me are purely speculation. If you would, I would still appreciate a response to my statement that it is the Democrats and the political left that are acting in a partisan fashion.

oops I missed one or two.

"projection"

I stand properly chastised. I suppose it is true that you may not have agreed with the invasion, but I was trying to speak in a larger context. My point is that approval for the invasion was accepted on both sides of the political spectrum. You may very well be a Republican who has changed his stance on the issue. This is for you to know, and since you haven't confirmed or denied my "projection" I suppose any assertions from me are purely speculation. I would still appreciate a response to my statement that it is the Democrats and the political left that are acting in a partisan fashion.

"tense"

As far as lies, lied, lying ect.. my tense was wrong; but, I was writting in haste and was trying to express that they continue to lie. I appreciate you proof reading for me, but it seems that your not proofing out of concern for my writting skills. I suspect that your critisims come from a haughty personality that is more concerned about demonstrating your elite knowlege and grasp of english than demonstrating your actual opinion.