Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Pioneer]

Her qualifications still suck.

 

 

Literally or figuratively?

[Floyd Lawson]

OK, let's see...

 

Commander in Chief

Executive

Small Town, small state population. Don't think it's going to translate to Washington D.C./National politics very well.

Small business

Blue collar labor

Union

I'll give that one.

Local government

Clearing out bad politicians in her party

Yea, all politics are local politics, etc. Still isn't going to impress much of her own party. In both party, everyone talks a good game of reforming D.C. politics, but in the end, what you can bring home to your state or your district, at the very least, still influences reelection bids. And the choice for Attorney General is more of a real world solution to clearing out corruption in either party. Otherwise, even "bad" politicians are still a local district or state issue that gets addressed by the electorate in those districts or states. How may crappy and even outright corrupt politicians get reelected by the duffuses in their home district or state?

 

Abortion issue

An influence on the political right, a negative for the pro choice independents. Neither a plus or a minus.

Mother of a son in the military... and heading into the war zone

I feel for her having a son heading into a war zone, but she's far from the only one in either party having a child in the military, including Joe Biden's son, who is deploying to Iraq in early October.

 

Her qualifications still suck.

As compared to Obama's?

[Pioneer]

6 things the Palin pick says about McCain

 

#1. He's desperate.

[Len_A]

Literally or figuratively?

 

Literally? Only in my dreams - didn't say I didn't like her looks.

 

As compared to Obama's?

Sorry, Buckwheat, but with McCain's desperation pick, the whole "not qualified" arguement toward Obama falls really flat.

[Floyd Lawson]

Literally? Only in my dreams - didn't say I didn't like her looks.

 

 

Sorry, Buckwheat, but with McCain's desperation pick, the whole "not qualified" arguement toward Obama falls really flat.

Not even close, she has more qualifications than Obama, that's what has you Dems worried.

[retro-man]

My first impression was that I haven't seen a running mate who would do so much for a ticket since Perot picked Stockdale. My next thought was "My God! They've thrown the contest! It's all being orchestrated from the top, and they've decided that the Democrats are in this time!"

 

But, I'm willing to get to know her, and to judge her on her merits and her positions. I'm willing to hear her out in the debates. It's no secret that my politics are much closer to Obama's and Biden's on the face of it - but I will hear them out.

 

I will not engage in character assassination. Personally, I think McCain is a fine man. WTF was wrong with the Republican party and voters that they didn't nominate him in 2000?!?!? I have absolutely zero doubt that the country, and the world, would be in better shape now if they had.

 

But on these matters, my politics are closer to Obama's and unlikely to change:

 

- Iraq was a mistake and a distraction. Can we admit it please? A very very very expensive mistake that incalculably damaged our economy, and our standing in the world community. And the case for it was falsely presented to the American people. The administration's inner circle was basically identical to the membership of PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kagan, et. al), who had a long-standing agenda to oust Saddam. 9/11 provided an excuse. We fucked up by not finishing up in Afghanistan and leaning harder on Pakistan to shut down the Madrassas, build a public school system, and get control of their frontier. Weapons of mass destruction...... shit, where were we last year when N. Korea was bustin' a cap underground? Huh? Oh yeah - no oil in that area.

 

- Personally, I am pro-choice. Anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It is not an issue in my life, but the moral imperative is not such that I would impose my will on someone else about it. Like the bumper sticker says: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" I absolutely applaud Pallin's decision to carry her Down's Syndrome child to term. But I know the difference between a first trimester fetus - which might be sensate flesh (I believe there is some medical debate on that point, but I am willing to concede it), and a potential human being - between a fetus and a real person: a real person with friends, loves, memories, dreams, emotions, plans, parents, grandparents, children, stories, skills, talents, a sense of humor, and a fear of death. It puzzles me that so many people will get up in arms over a fetus (a few to the extreme point of shooting and bombing Doctors and Nurses), and at the same time be so willing to send a real, actual person off to the execution chamber, or to a false war to get blown to smithereens, or to let them starve under a bridge, die from lack of preventive care, or suffer poverty. That does not fit my moral standard.

 

- Supply-side economics is dead. It's just that a lot of you haven't figured that out yet. Or, you're too butt-stubborn to admit that you've had it wrong for awhile. It is bankrupt. We have lived under "The Reagan Revolution" for 28 years, and it is doing us more harm than good by now. Another term its proponents coined for it was "Trickle down" economics. Almost 30 years now, and it is not trickling down. In fact manifestly, spectacularly, the opposite! By its own metrics, it is a failure and a lie. We have created a degree of economic inequality that hasn't been seen since before the great depression, that is unequaled in the first world, and that used to be associated with a Latin America of campesinos and overlords. Some scholars (I know you don't trust scholars - they spend too much time thinking) have identified this growing inequality as a threat to Democracy itself - a view that I happen to agree with. That wasn't supposed to be the end effect of Supply-side economics, but it has in fact been. Some of you - rather than admit that it isn't working, have adopted the position that this tremendous and growing inequality is just fine! Where the hell is your moral compass?

 

So, those are my issues. I will hear the candidates out, with as open a mind as I can muster. I have changed my mind in the past about things: most notably free trade. I will not engage in character assassination. I am sure they are all decent people. This whole "experience" thing is a straw man. I am interested in who has the intellect to grasp the situations confronting us and respond, and what their values are.

Edited August 31, 2008 by retro-man

[DUCKRACER]

mccain goes after the good looking gals.

 

 

Yeah, when she was first announced, I was researching her and found an article that noted that there were bumper stickers going around that said

 

 

"COLDEST STATE, HOTTEST GOVERNOR"

 

I agree.

[DUCKRACER]

My first impression was that I haven't seen a running mate who would do so much for a ticket since Perot picked Stockdale. My next thought was "My God! They've thrown the contest! It's all being orchestrated from the top, and they've decided that the Democrats are in this time!"

 

But, I'm willing to get to know her, and to judge her on her merits and her positions. I'm willing to hear her out in the debates. It's no secret that my politics are much closer to Obama's and Biden's on the face of it - but I will hear them out.

 

I will not engage in character assassination. Personally, I think McCain is a fine man. WTF was wrong with the Republican party and voters that they didn't nominate him in 2000?!?!? I have absolutely zero doubt that the country, and the world, would be in better shape now if they had.

 

But on these matters, my politics are closer to Obama's and unlikely to change:

 

- Iraq was a mistake and a distraction. Can we admit it please? A very very very expensive mistake that incalculably damaged our economy, and our standing in the world community. And the case for it was falsely presented to the American people. The administration's inner circle was basically identical to the membership of PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kagan, et. al), who had a long-standing agenda to oust Saddam. 9/11 provided an excuse. We fucked up by not finishing up in Afghanistan and leaning harder on Pakistan to shut down the Madrassas, build a public school system, and get control of their frontier. Weapons of mass destruction...... shit, where were we last year when N. Korea was bustin' a cap underground? Huh? Oh yeah - no oil in that area.

 

- Personally, I am pro-choice. Anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It is not an issue in my life, but the moral imperative inherent in that issue is not such that I would impose my will on someone else about it. I know the difference between a fetus - which might be sensate flesh (I believe there is some medical debate on that point, but I am willing to concede it), and a potential human being - between a fetus and a real person: a real person with friends, loves, memories, dreams, plans, parents, grandparents, children, stories, skills, talents, a sense of humor, and a fear of death. It puzzles me that so many people will get up in arms over a potential person, and at the same time be so willing to send a real, actual person off to the execution chamber, or to a false war to get blown to smithereens, or to let them starve under a bridge, die from lack of preventive care, or suffer poverty. That choice, that comparison does not fit my moral standard.

 

- Supply-side economics is dead. It's just that a lot of you haven't figured that out yet. Or, you're too butt-stubborn to admit that you've had it wrong for awhile. It is bankrupt. We have lived under "The Reagan Revolution" for 28 years, and it is doing us more harm than good by now. Another term its proponents coined for it was "Trickle down" economics. Well, by every single metric and statistic, it is not trickling down. Almost 30 years now, and it is not trickling down. By its own metrics, it is a failure and a lie. We have created a degree of economic inequality that hasn't been seen since before the great depression, that is unequaled in the first world, and that used to be associated with a Latin America of campesinos and overlords. Some scholars (I know you don't trust scholars - they think) have identified this growing inequality as a threat to Democracy itself - a view that I happen to agree with. That wasn't supposed to be the end effect of Supply-side economics, but it has in fact been. So, some of you - rather than admit that it isn't working, have adopted the position that this tremendous and growing inequality is just fine! Where the hell is your moral compass?

 

So, those are my issues. I will hear the candidates out, with as open a mind as I can muster. I have changed my mind in the past about things: most notably free trade. I will not engage in character assassination. I am sure they are all decent people. This whole "experience" thing is a straw man. I am interested in who has the intellect to grasp the situations confronting us and respond, and what their values are.

 

 

 

So, you're solution is socialism?

[retro-man]

So, you're solution is socialism?

 

A simple response to a complex issue. Ever been to Norway? That "Socialist" country is 2 slots above us on the prosperity list. The more the U.S. comes to resemble Pinochet's Chile, the better Norway is looking. But I'd settle for a tax structure and level of regulation and Government investment in infrastructure like the U.S. had in the 60s - you know, when us grown-ups were young, we were shooting for the moon, we made everything we need here, a single income could provide a middle class life, and bridges were being built instead of falling down.

 

In the 27 "Reagan Revolution" years from 1980 to 2007, GDP grew 123% and per capita GDP grew 68%. In the 27 years preceding that - from 1953 to 1980 (being generous - I chose a 27 year period that leaves out the great depression and the war, and leaves in the Carter stagflation years) GDP grew 148% and per capita GDP grew 74%. These differences aren't quite as striking as I expected - but they do demonstrate that supply side economics isn't all that, and that the New Deal / Great Society economic policies worked quite well for us. And of course, they don't represent at all the shift in the balance of wealth, and the war on the middle class under Reaganomics, nor the explosion of 2-income families during the supply-side years, without which the growth rate would have been much lower. Also, much of the gains made during the supply-side years have come at the expense of investment in our infrastructure. Everything - everything we depend on, from our interstate highways, to our power infrastructure, to our telephone system, to our municipal water and sewer infrastructures (not to mention parks, libraries, public schools and universities) was largely put in place - by government and quasi-government entities - in the years before the current anti-tax, anti-government hysteria set in. Once we see that they're falling apart around us, and come to appreciate the havoc that is creating, there's going to be a serious tab to pay. And no middle class tax base left to pay it.

 

Fun Source

Edited August 31, 2008 by retro-man

[Len_A]

Not even close, she has more qualifications than Obama, that's what has you Dems worried.

You are truely delusional. And I, for one, am not worried.

[Len_A]

Not even close, she has more qualifications than Obama, that's what has you Dems worried.

Worried about a V.P. pick, who said a month ago that she didn't know what the vice president does? You Tube is great:

 

Watch it and weep.

[taxman100]

I think she is a brilliant pick - a "common" woman who is much closer to the average American than any "Democrat establishment" candidate like Obama.

 

Ironically, the man who promotes "change" has to deal with someone who actually represents everyone who is not an insider to Washington. The Democrats, the party of the "common man", condemns her for only have a bachelor's degree, liking to hunt and fish, and the worst of all, her husband has a blue collar job, and likes outdoor activities. It is a classic irony that the Dems have to condemn someone whom they alledge to "speak" for in Washington.

 

Both McCain and Palin have sons who have, or will, serve in Iraq. Does anyone seriously think Obama would let one of his children serve in the military? Biden to me is just another entrenched east coast liberal senator, who will serve until he dies.

 

I was very unenthused with McCain, but this lady has everything a real American male would want in their wife, let along their politician.

[mulewright]

My first impression was that I haven't seen a running mate who would do so much for a ticket since Perot picked Stockdale. My next thought was "My God! They've thrown the contest! It's all being orchestrated from the top, and they've decided that the Democrats are in this time!"

 

But, I'm willing to get to know her, and to judge her on her merits and her positions. I'm willing to hear her out in the debates. It's no secret that my politics are much closer to Obama's and Biden's on the face of it - but I will hear them out.

 

I will not engage in character assassination. Personally, I think McCain is a fine man. WTF was wrong with the Republican party and voters that they didn't nominate him in 2000?!?!? I have absolutely zero doubt that the country, and the world, would be in better shape now if they had.

 

But on these matters, my politics are closer to Obama's and unlikely to change:

 

- Iraq was a mistake and a distraction. Can we admit it please? A very very very expensive mistake that incalculably damaged our economy, and our standing in the world community. And the case for it was falsely presented to the American people. The administration's inner circle was basically identical to the membership of PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kagan, et. al), who had a long-standing agenda to oust Saddam. 9/11 provided an excuse. We fucked up by not finishing up in Afghanistan and leaning harder on Pakistan to shut down the Madrassas, build a public school system, and get control of their frontier. Weapons of mass destruction...... shit, where were we last year when N. Korea was bustin' a cap underground? Huh? Oh yeah - no oil in that area.

 

- Personally, I am pro-choice. Anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It is not an issue in my life, but the moral imperative is not such that I would impose my will on someone else about it. Like the bumper sticker says: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" I absolutely applaud Pallin's decision to carry her Down's Syndrome child to term. But I know the difference between a first trimester fetus - which might be sensate flesh (I believe there is some medical debate on that point, but I am willing to concede it), and a potential human being - between a fetus and a real person: a real person with friends, loves, memories, dreams, emotions, plans, parents, grandparents, children, stories, skills, talents, a sense of humor, and a fear of death. It puzzles me that so many people will get up in arms over a fetus (a few to the extreme point of shooting and bombing Doctors and Nurses), and at the same time be so willing to send a real, actual person off to the execution chamber, or to a false war to get blown to smithereens, or to let them starve under a bridge, die from lack of preventive care, or suffer poverty. That does not fit my moral standard.

 

- Supply-side economics is dead. It's just that a lot of you haven't figured that out yet. Or, you're too butt-stubborn to admit that you've had it wrong for awhile. It is bankrupt. We have lived under "The Reagan Revolution" for 28 years, and it is doing us more harm than good by now. Another term its proponents coined for it was "Trickle down" economics. Almost 30 years now, and it is not trickling down. In fact manifestly, spectacularly, the opposite! By its own metrics, it is a failure and a lie. We have created a degree of economic inequality that hasn't been seen since before the great depression, that is unequaled in the first world, and that used to be associated with a Latin America of campesinos and overlords. Some scholars (I know you don't trust scholars - they spend too much time thinking) have identified this growing inequality as a threat to Democracy itself - a view that I happen to agree with. That wasn't supposed to be the end effect of Supply-side economics, but it has in fact been. Some of you - rather than admit that it isn't working, have adopted the position that this tremendous and growing inequality is just fine! Where the hell is your moral compass?

 

So, those are my issues. I will hear the candidates out, with as open a mind as I can muster. I have changed my mind in the past about things: most notably free trade. I will not engage in character assassination. I am sure they are all decent people. This whole "experience" thing is a straw man. I am interested in who has the intellect to grasp the situations confronting us and respond, and what their values are.

 

I agree that the Iraq war was a mistake and we should have finished the one in Afghanistan. What people forget is that every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD's... That said once we were there you have to finish it, which brings me to Obama...

 

A year ago he voted against the troop surge that has by all accounts worked and at the time he said "nobody he's talked to believes the additional troops will help and we should not send additional troops in" and "we should pull out within 16 months and send a couple battalions to Afghanistan". Now he's on the campaign trail taking credit for being right that we should pull out, yet he voted against the troop surge so if he'd had his way we'd have left in defeat.

 

His pal Biden said today that" John McCain said 3 years ago that we didn't need to send more troops to Afghanistan and 1 year ago Obama said we do... Obama was right and McCain was wrong" Well, 3 years ago Afghanistan was doing pretty good and didn't need additional troops, now the Taliban has gotten stronger and we could use the extra help but 1 year ago we needed the troops for the surge which has worked and additional troops are being rotated stateside and redeployed to Afghanistan. Obama was wrong on all counts and when asked during his tour of Iraq if he would still vote against the surge, he said yes.

 

He's either stupid or one of those guys that can't admit he's wrong.

 

On "supply side economics" the tax cuts have increased tax revenues, the problem is Congress manages to spend the extra and then some. What has really caused the downward pressure on wages is "free trade" but both parties support it as well as most Americans so we're screwed.

[96towncarcartier]

Okay...

 

Iraq was certainly not a mistake. For one thing, Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction. Russia said he did. England said he did. The CIA said he did.

 

Let's see, three separate countries agree that he had them. Hmmm...

 

At least more than once, Hussein had a deal with North Korea to spend $10 million to buy weapons of mass destruction. Thankfully, we had a president in office who stationed US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf... Saddam had no way to sneak them in the country... and the deal fell through.

 

We went to war in 1941 because Japan attacked us... over OIL I might add, but I digress. We fought in Europe to liberate France, Poland, Czech, and many other nations where innocent citizens were slaughtered by Hitler.

 

The only difference between Hitler and Saddam, many have said, is that Hitler never personally killed anyone. Saddam ENJOYED killing people. He executed a man once for misusing food rations. Saddam was responsible for killing over 300,000 people. Not to mention, violating the UN rules for years and years.

 

So... rescuing a nation from a dictator, someone who committed genocide... someone who HARBORED terrorists (remember we agreed with Bush when he said any country that harbored terrorists was our enemy)... someone who had and tried to get more WMD's... I think cleaning house in Iraq is very much in our best interests, and promotes a MUCH more stable region. We've kicked out the insurgents, we're kicking out the Iranians who were helping them. Schools are being built, people aren't living in fear, and companies around the world are investing billions in Iraq for the first time in forever.

 

We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans to establish this country. We lost half a million in WWI and WWII. We lost 58,000 in Vietnam. Just a few thousand in the Persian Gulf War. And just 4,000 in Iraq, which resulted in the capture/killing of dozens of terrorists including bin Laden's #2 and Saddam.

 

I'd say, the world is ALOT safer now than it was in 1980, 1990, and 2000.

 

An Obama presidency would be just like Carter's second term. Whether you like to admit it or not, the rich employ the masses. A tax break for the poor might total $20, but a tax break for the rich can equal millions... and when rich folks have extra money around, they invest it in business. This means, companies can grow, build factories, hire more people, and give raises and promotions. It's more than a trickle, but whatever you want to call it, it's how our economy works!

 

Slapping the rich with huge taxes, like Obama wants to do, will hurt industry like never before. You might have the money to afford two more gallons of gas each month with your tax break, but forget the possibility of any major RAISES in your job at work. And the windfall tax on big oil? Remember, Carter did that in the 70's... and what happened? We had to get gas on certain days of the week based upon our license plate number!

 

Sure, people say the Clinton years were great... but at what cost? Trade Center bombing; embassies bombed; USS Cole bombed. What did we do about it? Next to nothing. As a result... Sept 11 is now Patriot Day.

 

When we are WEAK and won't stand up for ourselves, our enemies will continue to KICK US. All the peace talk sounds rosy, but our enemies hope we won't fight them because that allows them to find new ways to defeat us. And that is what Obama will bring. Well I will gladly give my life for my country, for I refuse to live on my knees, even if Obama is content to do so.

 

 

My first impression was that I haven't seen a running mate who would do so much for a ticket since Perot picked Stockdale. My next thought was "My God! They've thrown the contest! It's all being orchestrated from the top, and they've decided that the Democrats are in this time!"

 

But, I'm willing to get to know her, and to judge her on her merits and her positions. I'm willing to hear her out in the debates. It's no secret that my politics are much closer to Obama's and Biden's on the face of it - but I will hear them out.

 

I will not engage in character assassination. Personally, I think McCain is a fine man. WTF was wrong with the Republican party and voters that they didn't nominate him in 2000?!?!? I have absolutely zero doubt that the country, and the world, would be in better shape now if they had.

 

But on these matters, my politics are closer to Obama's and unlikely to change:

 

- Iraq was a mistake and a distraction. Can we admit it please? A very very very expensive mistake that incalculably damaged our economy, and our standing in the world community. And the case for it was falsely presented to the American people. The administration's inner circle was basically identical to the membership of PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kagan, et. al), who had a long-standing agenda to oust Saddam. 9/11 provided an excuse. We fucked up by not finishing up in Afghanistan and leaning harder on Pakistan to shut down the Madrassas, build a public school system, and get control of their frontier. Weapons of mass destruction...... shit, where were we last year when N. Korea was bustin' a cap underground? Huh? Oh yeah - no oil in that area.

 

- Personally, I am pro-choice. Anti-abortion, but pro-choice. It is not an issue in my life, but the moral imperative is not such that I would impose my will on someone else about it. Like the bumper sticker says: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" I absolutely applaud Pallin's decision to carry her Down's Syndrome child to term. But I know the difference between a first trimester fetus - which might be sensate flesh (I believe there is some medical debate on that point, but I am willing to concede it), and a potential human being - between a fetus and a real person: a real person with friends, loves, memories, dreams, emotions, plans, parents, grandparents, children, stories, skills, talents, a sense of humor, and a fear of death. It puzzles me that so many people will get up in arms over a fetus (a few to the extreme point of shooting and bombing Doctors and Nurses), and at the same time be so willing to send a real, actual person off to the execution chamber, or to a false war to get blown to smithereens, or to let them starve under a bridge, die from lack of preventive care, or suffer poverty. That does not fit my moral standard.

 

- Supply-side economics is dead. It's just that a lot of you haven't figured that out yet. Or, you're too butt-stubborn to admit that you've had it wrong for awhile. It is bankrupt. We have lived under "The Reagan Revolution" for 28 years, and it is doing us more harm than good by now. Another term its proponents coined for it was "Trickle down" economics. Almost 30 years now, and it is not trickling down. In fact manifestly, spectacularly, the opposite! By its own metrics, it is a failure and a lie. We have created a degree of economic inequality that hasn't been seen since before the great depression, that is unequaled in the first world, and that used to be associated with a Latin America of campesinos and overlords. Some scholars (I know you don't trust scholars - they spend too much time thinking) have identified this growing inequality as a threat to Democracy itself - a view that I happen to agree with. That wasn't supposed to be the end effect of Supply-side economics, but it has in fact been. Some of you - rather than admit that it isn't working, have adopted the position that this tremendous and growing inequality is just fine! Where the hell is your moral compass?

 

So, those are my issues. I will hear the candidates out, with as open a mind as I can muster. I have changed my mind in the past about things: most notably free trade. I will not engage in character assassination. I am sure they are all decent people. This whole "experience" thing is a straw man. I am interested in who has the intellect to grasp the situations confronting us and respond, and what their values are.

[retro-man]

Okay...

 

Iraq was certainly not a mistake. For one thing, Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction. Russia said he did. England said he did. The CIA said he did.

CIA Final Report: No WMDs Found in Iraq

Bush Admits No WMDs Found

 

Next!

[Len_A]

Okay...

 

Iraq was certainly not a mistake. For one thing, Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction. Russia said he did. England said he did. The CIA said he did.

 

Let's see, three separate countries agree that he had them. Hmmm...

retro-man answered you on this quite well. No, Hussein did not have WMD. Period. Furthermore, the initial "intel" that suggested otherwise was revealed to come from sources that our European allies discredited. And despite what Russian intel may have said about Iraqi WMD, as a stated matter of their foriegn policy, Russia was vehemently against any action against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

 

At least more than once, Hussein had a deal with North Korea to spend $10 million to buy weapons of mass destruction. Thankfully, we had a president in office who stationed US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf... Saddam had no way to sneak them in the country... and the deal fell through.

Another piece of reported "intelligence" whose sources were not verified.

 

 

We went to war in 1941 because Japan attacked us... over OIL I might add, but I digress. We fought in Europe to liberate France, Poland, Czech, and many other nations where innocent citizens were slaughtered by Hitler.

 

The only difference between Hitler and Saddam, many have said, is that Hitler never personally killed anyone. Saddam ENJOYED killing people. He executed a man once for misusing food rations. Saddam was responsible for killing over 300,000 people. Not to mention, violating the UN rules for years and years.

 

So... rescuing a nation from a dictator, someone who committed genocide... someone who HARBORED terrorists (remember we agreed with Bush when he said any country that harbored terrorists was our enemy)... someone who had and tried to get more WMD's... I think cleaning house in Iraq is very much in our best interests, and promotes a MUCH more stable region. We've kicked out the insurgents, we're kicking out the Iranians who were helping them. Schools are being built, people aren't living in fear, and companies around the world are investing billions in Iraq for the first time in forever.

 

We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans to establish this country. We lost half a million in WWI and WWII. We lost 58,000 in Vietnam. Just a few thousand in the Persian Gulf War. And just 4,000 in Iraq, which resulted in the capture/killing of dozens of terrorists including bin Laden's #2 and Saddam.

 

I'd say, the world is ALOT safer now than it was in 1980, 1990, and 2000.

The regions stability is still in question, and it is a shortsighted and condescendingly narrow view to think that our country's action has promoted any stability in the region, when Al Queda has successfully used the invasion of Iraq as a recruiting poster for terrorist wannabes. Go ask the Spanish and the British how safe their world became as a result of their respective countries backing and participation in the invasion. Spain conservatives loss of the elections and their withdrawal from Iraq was the direct result of the bombing in Spain, carried out by Al Queda recruits.

 

 

An Obama presidency would be just like Carter's second term. Whether you like to admit it or not, the rich employ the masses. A tax break for the poor might total $20, but a tax break for the rich can equal millions... and when rich folks have extra money around, they invest it in business. This means, companies can grow, build factories, hire more people, and give raises and promotions. It's more than a trickle, but whatever you want to call it, it's how our economy works!

Really? Bushes tax cuts haven't helped promote any job growth around here - I have a degree and twenty-five years experience, and I can't even get a job offer for a job well beneath my qualifications. As of this coming Friday after Labor Day, it will be a year out of work. And the GOP fought extensions of unemployment benefits like hell. I have a business degree with a minor in economics and I know for a fact that trickle-down economics do not work. Furthermore, the only thing that has happened under Bush's trade, tax, and economic policies is encourage the growth in the exporting of jobs to China and India, which grew exponentially under this administration. No amount of business tax breaks will make up for competition from countries with millions of college educated professional and skilled factory workers who are willing to work for a small fraction of American wages. PERIOD.

 

Slapping the rich with huge taxes, like Obama wants to do, will hurt industry like never before. You might have the money to afford two more gallons of gas each month with your tax break, but forget the possibility of any major RAISES in your job at work. And the windfall tax on big oil? Remember, Carter did that in the 70's... and what happened? We had to get gas on certain days of the week based upon our license plate number!

The wealthiest in this country disproportionately benefited from Bush's tax cuts, and McCain was an early critic of those tax cuts for those reasons. Convenient that all of McCain's supports forgot that flip-flop.

 

 

Sure, people say the Clinton years were great... but at what cost? Trade Center bombing; embassies bombed; USS Cole bombed. What did we do about it? Next to nothing. As a result... Sept 11 is now Patriot Day.

The Trade Center and embassy bombings were planned during Bush 41's term, by an Al Queda which, to this day, has proven to be impossible for Western intelligence agencies to infiltrate. I wouldn't blame Bush 41 for those terrorist acts anymore than I would blame Clinton or the current President Bush for 9-11.

 

When we are WEAK and won't stand up for ourselves, our enemies will continue to KICK US. All the peace talk sounds rosy, but our enemies hope we won't fight them because that allows them to find new ways to defeat us. And that is what Obama will bring. Well I will gladly give my life for my country, for I refuse to live on my knees, even if Obama is content to do so.

Bullshit. Bush's actions in Iraq have seriously weakened our position in the world. You see how much Russia is afraid of us today. Korea is now backtracking on their agreement to dismantle their nuclear program. Your last statement is more neoconservative bullshit, that does a really good job of skirting the fact that our military is stretched so thin, that it is nearly at the breaking point, according to this administrations Department of Defense reports. You ignore that domestic security has been undermined by the extended deployment of National Guard units to Iraq, and by the fact that National Guard equipment sent to Iraq has not been returned to their respective states. Natural disaster responses continue to be placed at risk by the lower numbers of available National Guard troops. And the only ones profiting from all of this are the Halliburtons and Black Waters - military contractors and mercenaries.

[Floyd Lawson]

retro-man answered you on this quite well. No, Hussein did not have WMD. Period. Furthermore, the initial "intel" that suggested otherwise was revealed to come from sources that our European allies discredited. And despite what Russian intel may have said about Iraqi WMD, as a stated matter of their foriegn policy, Russia was vehemently against any action against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

 

Another piece of reported "intelligence" whose sources were not verified.

 

 

The regions stability is still in question, and it is a shortsighted and condescendingly narrow view to think that our country's action has promoted any stability in the region, when Al Queda has successfully used the invasion of Iraq as a recruiting poster for terrorist wannabes. Go ask the Spanish and the British how safe their world became as a result of their respective countries backing and participation in the invasion. Spain conservatives loss of the elections and their withdrawal from Iraq was the direct result of the bombing in Spain, carried out by Al Queda recruits.

 

 

Really? Bushes tax cuts haven't helped promote any job growth around here - I have a degree and twenty-five years experience, and I can't even get a job offer for a job well beneath my qualifications. As of this coming Friday after Labor Day, it will be a year out of work. And the GOP fought extensions of unemployment benefits like hell. I have a business degree with a minor in economics and I know for a fact that trickle-down economics do not work. Furthermore, the only thing that has happened under Bush's trade, tax, and economic policies is encourage the growth in the exporting of jobs to China and India, which grew exponentially under this administration. No amount of business tax breaks will make up for competition from countries with millions of college educated professional and skilled factory workers who are willing to work for a small fraction of American wages. PERIOD.

 

The wealthiest in this country disproportionately benefited from Bush's tax cuts, and McCain was an early critic of those tax cuts for those reasons. Convenient that all of McCain's supports forgot that flip-flop.

 

 

The Trade Center and embassy bombings were planned during Bush 41's term, by an Al Queda which, to this day, has proven to be impossible for Western intelligence agencies to infiltrate. I wouldn't blame Bush 41 for those terrorist acts anymore than I would blame Clinton or the current President Bush for 9-11.

 

Bullshit. Bush's actions in Iraq have seriously weakened our position in the world. You see how much Russia is afraid of us today. Korea is now backtracking on their agreement to dismantle their nuclear program. Your last statement is more neoconservative bullshit, that does a really good job of skirting the fact that our military is stretched so thin, that it is nearly at the breaking point, according to this administrations Department of Defense reports. You ignore that domestic security has been undermined by the extended deployment of National Guard units to Iraq, and by the fact that National Guard equipment sent to Iraq has not been returned to their respective states. Natural disaster responses continue to be placed at risk by the lower numbers of available National Guard troops. And the only ones profiting from all of this are the Halliburtons and Black Waters - military contractors and mercenaries.

Let me see if I follow your logic on WMD's. You don't consider killing 5000 people at one time with nerve gas mass destruction?

LINK

[Floyd Lawson]

Here's some more:

 

Did Iraq ever use sarin?

Yes. Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995. Saddam Hussein used sarin on the Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish village of Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including sarin and mustard gas killed as many as 5,000 people and left 65,000 others with severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam Hussein launched about 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds.

 

LINK

[Len_A]

Here's some more:

 

 

 

LINK

More disingenuous bullshit. Most of it prior to the first Gulf War, and the remainder found, both by CIA asessment and DoD reports, to be nonexistent at the time Bush was trying to make his case for invading Iraq. Or didn't the information

retro-man's link sit well with you?

[retro-man]

Let me see if I follow your logic on WMD's. You don't consider killing 5000 people at one time with nerve gas mass destruction?

LINK

Floyd,

Cartier was debating the reasons for the current Iraq war. Yes, we all know Saddam used gas on the Kurds - and did many other terrible things during his reign. DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR. There were "WMDs" found during this current conflict - if you consider a small stash of empty artillery shells left over from the first Gulf War, with traces of degraded Sarin and Mustard Gas clinging to them to be "WMDs". It is good that he's gone. But it was a poor use of our resources at the time. It has absolutely hurt us militarily, economically, and diplomatically.

 

There was evidence that Saddam was trying to rebuild his weapons program after the first Gulf War - if you consider unsubstantiated allegations from Iraqi opposition members - later discredited - to be "evidence". There was reason for suspicion - and out administration took "suspicion" and inflated it into undeniable, unquestionable proof before the UN and Congress (God rest Colin Powell's soul). They cherry-picked and cooked the flimsiest of evidence. The success of their disinformation campaign can be seen in the outrageous fact that an ABC News poll in March of 2003 indicated that 2/3 of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi!!! Bush himself felt compelled to publicly set the record straight on that one. He has been known to tell the truth on occasion.

 

Anyone who looked at the facts: Iraq had been defeated after the first Gulf War, and had agreed to dismantle their weapons programs - under UN Supervision. For the 10 years preceding 9/11 they were under Sanctions, constant flyovers by US forces, and continuous on-the-ground inspections by Hans Blix and his men.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

would have seen what was going on. It strained credibility to believe that Saddam had reconstituted a viable WMD program. If you had been following the careers of the inner circle of the Bush administration, it was - even in 2003 - pretty easy to see what was going on. They were capitalizing on the deep fears of Americans post-9/11, to do what they had wanted to do for years. Their agenda was not secret - it was all published openly on the PNAC website. (Go in and read for yourself.) However, they never stated these real reasons to the American public, because they knew we wouldn't commit lives and resources to it - so they latched onto 9/11 to "git er done". And directed precious attention and resources away from who had just, in fact, attacked us.

[mulewright]

More disingenuous bullshit. Most of it prior to the first Gulf War, and the remainder found, both by CIA asessment and DoD reports, to be nonexistent at the time Bush was trying to make his case for invading Iraq. Or didn't the information

retro-man's link sit well with you?

 

Perhaps you didn't look at the date on both those links, the "prior to" in your above statement is a lie! The information came out after the war.

[Len_A]

Perhaps you didn't look at the date on both those links, the "prior to" in your above statement is a lie! The information came out after the war.

Fuck that - the Gulf War was 1990 to 1992. Last I checked, the attacks on the Kurds and the use of chemical weapons against Iran were before 1990. Don't call me a liar unless you check your own facts. The alleged 1995 admission of possession of Sarin was discovered by the CIA, after questioning of much of the regime "leadership", to be an unsubstantiated lie, an act of bravado to fool Iran into thinking Iraq still had WMD. The October 2002 Nation Intelligence Estimate has been discredited by the results of the invasion - no WMD found. There are no substantiated claims of WMD after Bush 41 left office. That's the big complaint against Dubya - zero actual substantiation of WMD claims, and lots of claims from former Bush 43 White House, including Scott McClellan, that Dubya's White House manipulated what "facts" they had to justify the invasion of Iraq. McClellan's book is pretty interesting.

[Floyd Lawson]

Fuck that - the Gulf War was 1990 to 1992. Last I checked, the attacks on the Kurds and the use of chemical weapons against Iran were before 1990. Don't call me a liar unless you check your own facts. The alleged 1995 admission of possession of Sarin was discovered by the CIA, after questioning of much of the regime "leadership", to be an unsubstantiated lie, an act of bravado to fool Iran into thinking Iraq still had WMD. The October 2002 Nation Intelligence Estimate has been discredited by the results of the invasion - no WMD found. There are no substantiated claims of WMD after Bush 41 left office. That's the big complaint against Dubya - zero actual substantiation of WMD claims, and lots of claims from former Bush 43 White House, including Scott McClellan, that Dubya's White House manipulated what "facts" they had to justify the invasion of Iraq. McClellan's book is pretty interesting.

If as you say that Iraq presents no threat, why does the Dem. controlled Congress contnue to provide funding?

[fmccap]

Let me see if I follow your logic on WMD's. You don't consider killing 5000 people at one time with nerve gas mass destruction?

LINK

I we didn't let him have the stuff to begin with it would of never happened.

 

You seem to forget that when we were behind him we seemed to let those things slide.

 

If we stayed out of others buisness to start with we would be better off.

[fmccap]

If as you say that Iraq presents no threat, why does the Dem. controlled Congress contnue to provide funding?

POLITICS. Look at all the pork and BS spending added to every bill since the Dems took over. Both parties get what they want and WE the American People get FU@&$D.