Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
John McCain still can't keep his story straight about Iraq
jedreport.com — His campaign furiously tried to backpedal from his assertion that we are fighting the Iraq war for oil, but none of the explanations made any sense. It was a gaffe in the truest sense: McCain accidentally said what he really believes. He is having enough trouble keeping his story straight now. Just wait for the pressure of a 24x7 general election
PeaceAndJustice- 1221 diggs
- digg it
- SheilaNoya, on 05/28/2008, -10/+66The more McCain speaks, the more he fumbles.
It's time to get the press off the Obama/Hillary fight and focus more on McCain and his never-ending flip flops and incoherent babbling about the issues.- aliengoods, on 05/28/2008, -12/+7Here's the thing. When Obama speaks, he tells the truth, and you think to yourself, "That's what we all knew, but its nice to hear a politician say it." Look at the crappy notion of a gas tax, for example.
When McCain tells the truth, you think to yourself, "Good Lord, I was hoping that wasn't the truth but apparently it is." His best speeches appear to be those when he has senior moments. At least then I can laugh at the old, senile guy.- hittnrun, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1***** Please, literally.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Strong_eno ... - p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -8/+9Was Obama telling the truth when he said his uncle liberated Auschwitz? What about when he said he was conceived because of the March on Selma?
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -6/+1You idiot! What was the point of his story about his uncle? Obviously it was to talk about the mental health issues that confront many veterans after they return from war. How is whether he said Auschwitz or Illinois or Disneyland an issue. Does it really matter to you which foreign place veterans are exposed to the atrocious things they see that cause them problems when they return?
The sooner you right wing morons start to focus on the ISSUES(in this case mental health of veterans) rather than continuing to play politics with people's lives, the better! - p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6It matters because it makes him out to be a liar. To Obama, his lies are just words. And apparently, dead Jews at Auschwitz are just props.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -6/+1You idiot! What was the point of his story about his uncle? Obviously it was to talk about the mental health issues that confront many veterans after they return from war. How is whether he said Auschwitz or Illinois or Disneyland an issue. Does it really matter to you which foreign place veterans are exposed to the atrocious things they see that cause them problems when they return?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 05/28/2008, -6/+6Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama- ...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/whoa-now-that ... - crowbar77, on 05/28/2008, -3/+4Obama won't straight out lie, but he conveniently won't talk about controversial issues. Like why the US invaded Iraq, I think Paul has been the only one to come out and say we invaded for oil. McCain basically implied it, but that was more an accident.
- hittnrun, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1***** Please, literally.
- MxM111, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2I am digging for the story not being anti-Clinton, but anti McCain. Finally digg starts make more sense.
- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2You clearly see what you want to see then. McCain's senile attempts at coherent policy discussion have been covered here since long before the Republican primary was a lock.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Kinda makes me think it's Dubya dressed up as an albino.
The reason they fumble is because the thoughts aren't theirs it's rehearsed. - stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -5/+4the more mccain fumbles, the more i like what i see of the real man and his real views. i really like the true mccain. it's the base that he is pandering to that pisses me off.
doesn't really matter for me either way. im writing in ron paul - jbenson2, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Speaking of fumbling: Imagine that John McCain named a young running mate to campaign with him, and this national rookie suggested America had 58 states, repeatedly used the wrong names for the cities he was visiting, and honored a Memorial Day crowd by acknowledging the "fallen heroes" who were present, somehow alive and standing in the audience. How long would it take for the national media to see another Dan Quayle caricature? Let's raise the stakes. What if it was the GOP presidential candidate making these thoroughly ridiculous comments? This scenario is very real, except it isn't McCain. It's the O-man.
- aliengoods, on 05/28/2008, -12/+7Here's the thing. When Obama speaks, he tells the truth, and you think to yourself, "That's what we all knew, but its nice to hear a politician say it." Look at the crappy notion of a gas tax, for example.
- jdowland, on 05/28/2008, -12/+57The reason that McCain picked the year 2013 to end the Iraq war is so that he could go through his first term without having to meet any objectives and still have a chance of getting re-elected for a 2nd term.
McCain says all kinds of stupid crap:
http://therealmccain.com/- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -13/+12He didn't pick that year to end the Iraq war. He was painting a picture of what things would be like if he were president. Even in his painted picture he didn't pick that date, that is just when it happened to end. He's been pretty clear about not setting an arbitrary date for the end of the war. Just imagine if we would have picked a date for ww2 and gave up at that date. We would have thrown away all those lives lost to that date and still be under Nazi rule.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 05/28/2008, -8/+6Did you really just compare the Iraq war to World War II?
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -4/+9Compare? No. I was simply explaining the problem with setting a date. I'm not sure why you guys would bury me for factually correcting the lying parent comment. Anyways, you can apply my metaphor to any war. I'll give you an example on a smaller scale which should make it painfully clear what's wrong with the concept of giving a timetable. If you start a fight with some guy, how well do you think it would work if you chose 3 minutes to stop fighting? Unless the other guy also chose 3 minutes to stop fighting, you are stupid. Maybe you can explain to me the benefits of a timetable. And if all you're going to say is it would stop the fighting, then there would still be no reason for a timetable since you would then stop instantaneously.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7Ohh I forgot the other problem, which is if you were fighting me with your 3 minute timetable, I would literally protect myself for three minutes before raining down on you. Then you would just end up breaking your timetable and wishing you would have thought it through a bit more because the beating you took before reneging on the timetable is all it took for the winner to be me instead of you.
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6damn jdowland. you obama attack dogs will say ANYTHING. good thing masterm1nd was there to put you in your place.
- crowbar77, on 05/28/2008, -5/+2Are you ***** retarded?
WW2: 6 million jews murdered while nazi Gemany begins to invade most of Europe. US stays out of the war until attacked at pearl harbour
Iraq: small armed forces, had no WMD's and wasn't really a threat to anyone. Since the US has invaded over 90,000 citizens have been killed
The wars are NOTHING alike, the US are the aggressors and are there for one thing, oil.
- crowbar77, on 05/28/2008, -5/+2Are you ***** retarded?
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4Can you not tell the difference between a WAR & an OCCUPATION? It's actually eminently sensible to select a date to end an OCCUPATION
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Well, that's highly subjective. In any case, nearly every legitimate entity calls it a war. A quick google search for "iraq war" turns up 24,400,000 hits, whereas "iraq occupation" turns up a measly 811,000 hits. Maybe it is you who can not tell th difference between and occupation and a war. Maybe it's just a clever way for the anti-war to frame it.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 05/28/2008, -8/+6Did you really just compare the Iraq war to World War II?
- crowbar77, on 05/28/2008, -1/+8He will be 76 after his first term, I don't think he'll be going for the re-election.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7I don't think many conservatives would have a problem with that. Personally I see him as a placeholder while a better replacement is found (and no, Paulbots, I wasn't referring to Crazy Uncle Ron.)
- jdowland, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Even if McCain doesn't run for a 2nd term, his date means that the Republicans can avoid having to accomplish anything in general...
The Republicans have no plans to end the war.
- jdowland, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Even if McCain doesn't run for a 2nd term, his date means that the Republicans can avoid having to accomplish anything in general...
- PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Not to mention he's said on a number of occasions he's looking toward a one-and-done presidency.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7I don't think many conservatives would have a problem with that. Personally I see him as a placeholder while a better replacement is found (and no, Paulbots, I wasn't referring to Crazy Uncle Ron.)
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -13/+12He didn't pick that year to end the Iraq war. He was painting a picture of what things would be like if he were president. Even in his painted picture he didn't pick that date, that is just when it happened to end. He's been pretty clear about not setting an arbitrary date for the end of the war. Just imagine if we would have picked a date for ww2 and gave up at that date. We would have thrown away all those lives lost to that date and still be under Nazi rule.
- IdigObama, on 05/28/2008, -8/+21Honestly now...does the republican party really want John McCain for president?
I don't think so ......but they are stuck with him now and he will be a thorn in their side!- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -7/+10No, but under the current situation in which the democrats basically have this election haded to them, a centrist candidate is their best bet, and it really helps them that the democrats chose the furthest left senator.
- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4You are a ***** moron. Obama is not the furthest left by any stretch. Obama represents everything that the Clinton campaign of 92 represented. Pragmatic change that we can pay for. Not maniacal tax cuts and expenditures that don't match up. The equation goes that you can't spend more without taxing more. Republicans just buy everything on the company's Amex Black because they never see the bill. Republicans shouldn't have thumbed their noses at Ron Paul. He's exactly the candidate they should want, but they are too hung up on valuing social conservation over REAL conservation.
Republicans would have a *****-ton more people on their side if they were actual Republicans.- badqat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5What is with Obama supporters continually stating he's pragmatic? He isn't, and most of his supporters aren't either.
If you'd care to note, Bill Clinton was a centrist, not on the far left like Obama. Clinton was kept in check by a Republican majority elected during the first mid-term after he entered office.
And yes, McCain is a centrist as well.
The Republican party is no more fragmented than the Democratic party. Dems have everything from socialists, centrists, blue dogs and yellow dogs, and even old racists like KKK Grand Dragon Byrd claiming membership.
- badqat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5What is with Obama supporters continually stating he's pragmatic? He isn't, and most of his supporters aren't either.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -4/+8Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate is factually the furthest left of any senator. You are the "***** moron".
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/ ... .- zombies187, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Your link is factually an editorial. Site proof that can be measured.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4The number you're looking for is in the last full year, 2007.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/njgraphics/0801 ... .
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ . - xtinamo, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2The National Journal pulled this same ***** rating with Kerry and later admitted to using a flawed methodology. How can we be certain that it's not flawed now? Attempting to label certain votes as either "conservative" or "liberal" is subjective at best. In one example, NJ had the audacity to label "liberal" Obama's vote for "an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010007?f=s_sea ... - masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Good point. He's probably very conservative and the national journal just doesn't know what they're talking about.
My question is, if mediamatters debunked the methodology for labeling Kerry most liberal, why can't they do it for Obama? Beside the point, I'm pretty sure there are other studies which produce the same result. - Homerr, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3There's nothing wrong with the left. The right has ***** this country over an oil barrel.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Well, that's your opinion. But we are talking about getting elected, which means appealing to the most amount of people.
- zombies187, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1@ poser
'Clinton has pointed to Obama's "present" votes on the abortion issue in the Illinois Legislature to raise questions about his support for abortion rights.'
Is that liberal?
'Rove pointedly added: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do."'
So he is solidly in the mainstream of the democratic party AND the most liberal senator? That doesn't make sense.
'"He's very clear from the beginning that we can't do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing."'
This is the 'liberalism' you are against?
'Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone House member still in the presidential race, had a composite conservative score of 60.2, making him the 178th-most-conservative lawmaker in that chamber in 2007.'
Wow. This rag sets HIGH standards for conservatism. In what way is being to the right of Paul mainstream?
'In Obama's first splash on the national stage, as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he disparaged ideological labels as weapons used by partisans who have little else to offer. "Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spinmasters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything-goes," he said. "Well, I say to them tonight: There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."'
Only ideologues could argue with that. Not mainstream America. I think the best way for repubs to win is to label Obama as a liberal. If they can get everyone to agree that being identified as a liberal is bad, then they can elect McCain. But I guess you already figured that out, poser!
- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4You are a ***** moron. Obama is not the furthest left by any stretch. Obama represents everything that the Clinton campaign of 92 represented. Pragmatic change that we can pay for. Not maniacal tax cuts and expenditures that don't match up. The equation goes that you can't spend more without taxing more. Republicans just buy everything on the company's Amex Black because they never see the bill. Republicans shouldn't have thumbed their noses at Ron Paul. He's exactly the candidate they should want, but they are too hung up on valuing social conservation over REAL conservation.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -7/+10No, but under the current situation in which the democrats basically have this election haded to them, a centrist candidate is their best bet, and it really helps them that the democrats chose the furthest left senator.
- KLBP, on 05/28/2008, -9/+15Sometimes it feels like McCain is a token "throw away" candidate that the Republicans put up as their nominee because the historical significance of the Democratic nominee is against the Republicans. It seems any really good Republican candidate decided to sit out this election rather than be marred by having to fight a loosing campaign. Little did they know early on that Hillary Clinton would fair so poorly and to what extreme she would go to in order to try and weaken Obama after it was so painfully obvious that she could not win.
It seems that the Republican strategy of wrapping their nomination process up very quickly has backfired this time around because they were unable to adapt to what was happening on the Democratic side. In addition their wrapping things up too soon has denied the Republicans lots of free air time and media coverage they could have otherwise received.- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4That makes no sense. A Republican won the last election when it was accepted that he was going to lose. Turned out differently, voter fraud notwithstanding.
- KLBP, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Actually it could be argued that Bush did not win in 2004 as much as Kerry lost. It seemed that Kerry was doing his best to lose. Kerry's campaign was terribly run and entirely uninspiring. Kerry himself seemed to have the personality of a log.
- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Kerry was a cookie cutter politician. There was nothing inspiring about him. Granted Obama could beat anyone in the field if he were white. You underestimate the power of bigotry in this country. I still think Obama will win, but if he were white, it would be a landslide. As it stands, I expect 60-40 at best, unless McCain has an episode and starts flinging turds during a debate.
- KLBP, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Actually it could be argued that Bush did not win in 2004 as much as Kerry lost. It seemed that Kerry was doing his best to lose. Kerry's campaign was terribly run and entirely uninspiring. Kerry himself seemed to have the personality of a log.
- Cyrus042, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4McCain is the Republican party's best shot at the White House this year. McCain is hardly a throwaway. A throw away would have been someone like Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo etc.
- KLBP, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2My point was that those Republicans who could have truly been strong candidates opted not to run. None of the Republican candidates were that inspiring. Well except for Ron Paul, but he was too Republican (in the traditional sense) to win the nomination.
- JayTee44, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3You're way off, starting with your first sentence; Republicans didn't 'put up' McCain, he decided for himself to run for president.
- KLBP, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1There are many instances throughout American history of strong candidates being drafted to run. Also see my reply to Cyrus042 above.
- dafragsta, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4That makes no sense. A Republican won the last election when it was accepted that he was going to lose. Turned out differently, voter fraud notwithstanding.
- mentallyinhell, on 05/28/2008, -11/+22McCain can't keep any story straight. Its either alzheimers, or some kind of bitchslap to the American public.
- julianwan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1An epic and never ending bitchslap
- whahaa, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0is it epic? is it really epic? epic epic epic epic epic? epic?
- julianwan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1An epic and never ending bitchslap
- lukas88, on 05/28/2008, -12/+41I just saw McCain speak about 40 minutes ago here in Denver. Iraq protesters interrupted him four times and they had to be dragged off by his security. He even had the audacity to mention free speech as the protesters were being dragged off. I guess he just means free speech for him.
- buba1243, on 05/28/2008, -4/+10While I believe in free speech there is something said to respect the current speaker and waiting your turn for a time to comment. You know like the guy who asked McCain about calling his wife a "*****" before being dragged off.
- masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -8/+14Sorry, but free speech does not mean you can say anything you want, anywhere, at anytime.
- jp12380, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1It should? Maybe?
If they are in a private place then I think they have a right to remove people they don't want there but FREE speech is pretty much what you just said it isn't.- DemonWasp, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3It may be the broadest definition of "free speech", jp12380, but it's not the best one. Your definition would permit all sorts of legal trouble (libel, slander, perjury, etc), but also social problems (rasicm, sexism, etc). A better definition can be found in your Constitution.
- jp12380, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1It should? Maybe?
- Disregard, on 05/28/2008, -3/+7Free speech is where you invade random countries to Protect Our Freedoms, not say what you want!
- lilricky, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Yeah, I guess he didn't learn from Kerry's example, taser them!
- Cyrus042, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6McCain frequently holds Town Hall events, they are more than welcome to confront him there. Many individuals/opponents do, but apparently too many feel that shouting and disrupting a speech is a far better way of pursuing a cause than trying to engage in a rational dialogue with someone in the appropriate setting.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Good luck having a rational dialogue with John McCain.
- Monk22, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1it would be easier than having one with your average digger apparently
- thatcoolrushguy, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Good luck having a rational dialogue with John McCain.
- SwedishNinja, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Uhhh... maybe they shouldn't have interrupted his speech?
- tastypickles, on 05/28/2008, -7/+10Needs more cowbell
- eminiguy, on 05/28/2008, -6/+141)He is 71 years old. 2) He is a politician. Do you really expect someone described by 1) and 2) to be able to say what he thinks without getting it twisted? I wouldn't...
- bhod, on 05/28/2008, -13/+5GOBAMA!
- nutniqs, on 05/28/2008, -12/+12McCan't Remember is a tottering old coot. He's the old gaurd and when the primaries are over sit back and watch him blank out when Obama starts to rake him over the coals about his flip flopping ways. Hopefully youth and the promise of progress will overcome this dinosaur for good.
08AMA!- Sil369, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Dugg for "McCan't Remember" and "08AMA"
- ibone, on 05/28/2008, -6/+6Let me guess... McCain can't but Obama can!
- StripeyMagee, on 05/28/2008, -9/+1McCain- the 20th century candidate.
- deadbaby, on 05/28/2008, -6/+13Doesn't matter. Hasn't the Bush presidency taught us anything? The average voter doesn't really understand the situation so it doesn't matter if McCain flip flops because they don't have any factual knowledge to check it against. As long as the sound bite sounds good, it's true.
- PacoLugi, on 05/28/2008, -11/+3I heard Obama will choose Maxine Waters as his running mate!
GOBAMA! - julianwan, on 05/28/2008, -9/+8Personally, I think it's because McCain is a ***** lunatic...
- Wheedys123, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3is this suppose to be a surprise???
- zoom1928, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1The comments you requested failed to load. This is clearly Kevin's fault. Try again!
- homah, on 05/28/2008, -7/+6McCain is crap. It will be interesting to see how many people vote for third party candidates in this election.
- palindrome12, on 05/28/2008, -13/+11At least McCain knows how many states there. Oh, and let's not forget what Obama said during a memorial day speech. Oh, but who cares! It's Obama, your messiah, who is going to lose the general election. You might as well get used to it.
- p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -11/+10McCain's story on Iraq is much straighter than Obama's story on Iran.
- rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4LOL wat?
Ohh wait. You are one of them. never mind.
What is your comment on Bush negotiating with the terrorists in Saudi Arabia?- p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -7/+8"(Iran)They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." - Obama 5/19/2008
"Iran is a grave threat." - Obama 5/19/2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM
So, the grave Iranian threat isn't serious?
Circle that square. I'm sure by "You are one of them" you meant that I am not an Obamabot. You are correct, I can actually think for myself.- rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4LOL you are an *****. You just selectively pulled that quote from the greater context of Obama's full speech, negating the sum of the parts and you are just out to make a cheap unintelligent cheap shot.
Wow you really are a slime ball. I bet you are a Christian too.
You go vote for the guy who wants a war for "100 years." and show your support for the troops by voting in guys who want to take away benefits from them, and send them to war for 100 years.
how many wars have you fought pal?
And thanks for proving my point that you support Bush negotiating with terrorists.
Why do you support negotiations with terrorists, buddy? - p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5Did he say Iran was a grave threat? Yes.
Did he also say Iran wasn't a serious threat? Yes.
What kind of bizarro world does he live in where a grave threat isn't serious? Just answer the question. - Lurtz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5You call him a slime ball, yet you throw in an attack on a religion he may or may not belong too. Nice job in maintaining the discourse of the discussion at a high level of class. Oh also assuming because he opposes the droves of Obama supporters that he must be a McCain supporter is an added nice touch.
- rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1You are a troll, and not a very smart person. You see the world in black in white, much like a child. As a result any conversation with you will be as illuminating as a discussion with some parrots at the local Zoo.
At least my world view encompasses much more than your narrow bleak world view, and as a result my life, and my future is much more enriching and positive than yours could ever be. - jp12380, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Rationalbeats
Perhaps you could explain how it was out of context?
I must admit what he did there does sound like a contradiction. Saying Iran spends very little money compared to us and aren't that great of a threat and then goes on to say they are a threat.
I definitely support Obama over McCain but I do see a Obama foul up here unless you could logically explain what he was saying in a way that makes sense. - p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6Both videos in context make it look even worse. In one he's trying to convince the audience that Iran and others don't pose a threat to us because they don't spend alot of money on defense. In the other he's trying to cover his tracks by saying Iran is a grave threat and that he's always claimed Iran was a grave threat.
First statement in context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ
Video from his campaign:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc
The first statement shows his complete and utter ignorance on foreign policy and the implications of a nuclear Iran. His second statement shows his incredible ability to simultaneously whine, equivocate, and deny his own statements. - DemonWasp, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1The problem with removing the context is that you could easily be removing exactly WHO Iran might be a threat to (among other information). Iran may well not be any kind of threat to the United States (probably true), but may be a threat to the stability of the region, and to the continued existence of Israel. I'm not saying that's exactly what he said, or even along the same lines, it's just an example to show that context is important.
Do you see how someone can be a threat and at the same time *not* be? - PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3@rationalbeats
"show your support for the troops by voting in guys who want to take away benefits from them"
What benefits was he taking away? His version of the GI Bill was more fiscally sound than Webb's version and was also an improvement on the current GI Bill. So you're holding John McCain to the fire for thinking that granting people a full-ride for their college educatin upon completion of basic training is a bad idea?
You want to talk about creating a massive military machine, well you're looking at it with Webb's GI Bill.
@DemonWasp
A threat to the stability of the Middle East is a threat to the US. - DemonWasp, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1@PolishLogic: It doesn't have to be. If the US would stop ***** them over for a decade or two and divorce themselves from oil (finally), then it wouldn't be a problem.
That would require a bit of work though, which is why nobody's too keen on doing it. - PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1@DemonWasp
You said it yourself.....oil. Like it or not, we're not going to be free from Middle Eastern oil for years upon years. Therefore, we have a very active interest in the stability of the region and nations that upset that stability are a threat.
You're right, it doesn't have to be that way, but unfortunately it is and will be for quite some time.
- rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4LOL you are an *****. You just selectively pulled that quote from the greater context of Obama's full speech, negating the sum of the parts and you are just out to make a cheap unintelligent cheap shot.
- p0s3r, on 05/28/2008, -7/+8"(Iran)They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." - Obama 5/19/2008
- SQLserver, on 05/28/2008, -5/+4Yeah:
Kill them Islams and get there oils!
The motive, idea, and main objectives are pretty clear when it comes to McCain.
- rationalbeats, on 05/28/2008, -6/+4LOL wat?
- crackberri, on 05/28/2008, -9/+5Did I ever tell you that I liberated Auschwitz and invented the Internet?
- Cyrus042, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8I encourage everyone to read this article and watch this video. You'll soon realize the exaggerations and deliberate misunderstandings by the author.
The fact of the matter is that McCain saying that he would like to ideally have achieved a stable peace in Iraq by 2013 is not the same as a very concrete drawdown on a month by month basis beginning in 2008. Further the oil comment actually is about Iraq... in 1990 in the context of accusations of slant drilling. (for those who don't remember)
I think it's interesting that the author reported on the fact that Obama had qualified his statements about a full drawdown by keeping a small peacekeeping force seeing as this is exactly what McCain meant when he made his 100 year statement. Obviously thats the reasonable approach to the credit of both Obama and McCain, but even though the intention is the same, partisans continue to "hit" McCain on those comments. - dizilbdog, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5I'd love to see Mcain Flip out on Stage with Obama in a debate that would be priceless.
- JointVenture, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3McCain will make Obama look the fool the way he did in all the debates.
He wont have his beloved teleprompter. - Jamihabs, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5I remember when Gore and then Kerry were supposed to make Bush look like a fool in the debates. Bush held his own and therefore won.
- JointVenture, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3McCain will make Obama look the fool the way he did in all the debates.
- uptown, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2There's a reason senior citizens aren't the debate champs. McCain is just giving a first-hand demonstration.
- BionicPimp, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Let's be fair here. McCain just said what we all know to be true. We fought the Iraq war because of oil. Greenspan said much the same thing in his book. Many others from within the administration have said it as well. Regardless of our opinion about his politics, we can all agree that John McCain is a man that says what thinks, often times to his own detriment. We also know the reason why McCain is trying to distance himself from those statements. The American people...especially republicans...don't like to be reminded of why we *really* went to war. It is offensive our idealization of America, and corrosive to American democracy to think that our country would kill for material resources, even though we know that every society on earth has at one time, done the same. To remind voters of the shamefulness of the actions taken in our name is a guaranteed way to lose the presidential election.
- uptown, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The problem is, now he's trying to say what he knows he's supposed to say but occasionally he's saying what he's thinking ... and the two are frequently diametrically opposed.
- dylanbright, on 05/28/2008, -2/+12If we're taking Iraq's oil, I am not seeing a drop of it.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3No but the no-bid contracts given to U.S. big Oil is seeing the profits...it's all about the benjamins and the kick-backs.
- PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately for your story, the profit margins of big Oil aren't reflecting that in the slightest.
- zombies187, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2That's the point. Strangle the market for higher prices.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3No but the no-bid contracts given to U.S. big Oil is seeing the profits...it's all about the benjamins and the kick-backs.
- crackberri, on 05/28/2008, -8/+6I also forgot to mention that I have a sister that liberated Auschwitz.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -4/+22013?!!!! You've got to be ***** me. Now they are talking about being in Iraq for another 5 years? You know if they are saying 5 years it will be longer.
What ever happened to showing progress? Progress isn't staying there another 5 years. I hate to tell Congress but the 6 month evaluation period DID NOT WORK!....but they gave them the money anyways.
What can a person do? I know I've done everything I could have but still got the same results. Never has one person that I voted for made it into office, and I've been voting for 17 years now. It's sick.- RRJackson, on 05/28/2008, -3/+9We're not ever leaving Iraq. All three candidates know that. Only McCain has been honest enough to admit it.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2I guess it makes you a better person telling people that you are going to make bad decisions.
In my mind I want somebody that is going to make the RIGHT decisions instead of saying something and sticking to it no matter what the circumstances are.
We've had enough of that with Bush I'm sorry....- RRJackson, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2The decision has already been made. We've build permanent bases all over Iraq and an embassy in Baghdad the size of Vatican City. We're not going anywhere. The intention was always to secure a permanent strategic base of operations in the middle east. No president is going to be able to reverse that decision and the candidates all know it. Too many resources have been committed to establishing our permanent presence there.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2I guess it makes you a better person telling people that you are going to make bad decisions.
- zombies187, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Not one of the three candidates has promised to end any war.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Well then it's a good thing that I didn't vote for any of them in the primary isn't it?!
Let everyone else vote to keep the war going, I'm not. I reserve the right to complain though since I've seen the voting process through. Not that I'm a tree hugger or anything, it's just that the war is running this country into the ground.
By the way...there are 6 presidential candidates. You forget Barr, Paul and Nader. - RRJackson, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Exactly. Both Clinton and Obama stress how important it is to "bring our troops back home" and they try to sell it like they're the End-The-War candidate without actually making any concrete claims about withdrawal. Obama claims he'll have all of our "combat brigades" out of Iraq in 16 months, but he qualifies it by saying that's unless something bad happens and they need to stay. And of course he doesn't say anything about civilian contractors who outnumber the actual military forces.
It's all a shell game. But you see what happens when McCain says we may still be there in a hundred years. It becomes a campaign soundbite for his opposition. We're still in Germany. We're still in Japan. We're still in California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. We're still in Hawaii. We'd still be in Vietnam if they hadn't sent us running for our lives. We don't leave when the war is over. We stay forever. In this case that was the plan all along. It was the whole reason for the war.
- Ne007, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Well then it's a good thing that I didn't vote for any of them in the primary isn't it?!
- RRJackson, on 05/28/2008, -3/+9We're not ever leaving Iraq. All three candidates know that. Only McCain has been honest enough to admit it.
- SQLserver, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5The crazies seem to be in conflict; They can't make up their minds on exactly why we are in Iraq: Osama, WMDs, Oil, 'killin islams', Christian pride, American duty, spreading democracy.
They slowly seem to be running out of decent reasons. - crackberri, on 05/28/2008, -5/+5I also forgot to mention that my great grandmother liberated Iraq.
- amightywind, on 05/28/2008, -7/+6John McCain is a tough and skilled campaigner. He was given up the for dead after the immigration debacle, but was able to trounce all of his opponents by February. Oblabber of the Glass Jaw *still* hasn't been able to finish Hillary off. She will win big in Puerto Rico tonight. Has a nominee ever staggered to the convention in weaker shape? He will get killed in all of the rust belt battleground states. Why? The hardworking people don't swallow the messiah pablum. "We are the change!" -- B. Hussein Obama.
- banderwocky, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Funny how the republican party allowed Mclame have the nomination kicking and screaming. Or how many life long republicans are turning their backs on him. I love watching American politics divide and conquer from the inside out. It makes for a weaker nation.
- runninbroke, on 05/28/2008, -9/+5EXCUSE ME OBAMA MANIACS!! Does Obama misspeak?? Hmm. Lets see, Iran not a threat, People are bitter and seek guns and religion, the new one " My uncle went to auschwitz and liberated the jews" HE HAS NO UNCLE AND THE AMERICANS DID NOT LIBERATE AUSCHWITZ!!! LOL! Now thats funny. Maybe he can use his superpowers to end the war. You blind Obama supporters make me sick! They all make mistakes speaking! They are in front of the camera 24/7. To act like Obama is so much better is an assinine view.
- roho76, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6Why am I having this gut feeling that he'll be the next president. As much as I try to quell it I just can't. With all the talk about assassination, Florida/Michigan delegate problems, and the free ride McCain is getting in the media I just have a bad feeling about all this. Not to mention the Republican party doesn't seem at all worried. The only thing their worried about is Ron Paul getting delegates and educating people about the truth.
- Codee, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Is anyone here even surprised? The wheels fell off the "Straight Talk Express" a longtime ago.
- TheInformer, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Of course, Obama makes no mistakes:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/316024,CST-NWS- ... - clippypog, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2Maybe, like Obama figuring out what Memorial Day is for, we can give McCain one extra day, please?
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/28/2008, -5/+5Obama constantly makes gaffes and you lefty loonies have to twist and distort and play stupid (something lefty loonies are really good at) to find things to complain about related to McCain.
GOOD GOSH!
Yesterday Obama said he could see lots fallen heroes (dead people) in the audience
Obama says his uncle liberated Auschwitz (the Sovients liberated Auschwitz and Obama's mother was an only child and his father is Kenyan)
Obama says there are 58, maybe 59 states
Obama claims a 1965 Selma Alabama event is what brought his parents together (Obama was born in 1961)
Obama claims Canada has a president
Obama claimed 10,000 people were killed in a tornado in Kansas - it was actually 12- znicket, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1You are a sad pedantic person.
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I am "sad and pedantic" because I tell you things Obama has actually said!?!?!?!
znicket, seems you don't just drink the kool-aid - you swim in it
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I am "sad and pedantic" because I tell you things Obama has actually said!?!?!?!
- znicket, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1You are a sad pedantic person.
- BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4"It was a gaffe in the truest sense: McCain accidentally said what he really believes."
At this point, I don't think McCain REALLY believes anything, except "I really want to be President, and will say or do anything to make sure that happens."- PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1"I really want to be President, and will say or do anything to make sure that happens."
That statement brings two other people to mind, as well.
- PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1"I really want to be President, and will say or do anything to make sure that happens."
- londubh, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1umnuh
- JointVenture, on 05/28/2008, -4/+8Thats funny, Obama said he saw dead people in the crowd on memorial day and today he said his GREAT Uncle liberated Auschwitz. Which is pretty funny considering the Red Army liberated Auschwitz.
But of course he just MISSPOKE, when anyone else does the same its a gaffe.
Are you people so blinded by your love for him that you cannot acknowledge a single mistake?
How about this, I challenge you to come up with some issues that you disagree with Obama on. I doubt you can do it, and that is ***** SCARY.- PolishLogic, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3I'm pretty sure if Hillary or McCain would have made an error like that the Digg submission would have the word liar in the title.
- znicket, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2So, he said Auschwitz when in fact it was Buchenwald. And that outrages you?
- Monk22, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2yeah i expect a president to know what the ***** hes talking about.
- JointVenture, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3If McCain had said he'd been to all 57 states like Obama did it would be called a senior moment.
If McCain had looked into a crowd and said he saw some of the brave souls in the crowd (ie. dead people) the press and you would have been all over him.
You guys are ***** brainwashed.
- Callik, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Perhaps we should start calling him Sidney McCain seeing as Republicans have done away with pesky unspinable forenames now.
- NelsonR, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2I like many, thought of McCain favorably when he went against Bush. What the hell happened to him? A flip flopper, a warmonger and an appeaser for votes he could possibly garner even if it goes against his grain. The man is not what he once was and hopefully he will pass into history in his attempt to win a war that cannot be won. Iraq = Vietnam, unquestionably, yet our elite and neo cons fail by repeating history. Might add with America's acquiescence and powered by one third of the electorate, Democracy in action.
McCain is passe and like the old movie star who ages you would prefer to remember them as they once were. - ralph12c41, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2And then there is Barack Obama who claims his Uncle who doesn't exist, liberated Jews from Auschwitz gas chambers during WWII. Too bad about missing uncle and fact that Americans' didn't liberate that camp, the Red army did. I guess "talking" helped him develop street cred in Chicago, unfortunately it isn't going to work with the American people. He is so full of it he can't go 2 days without stepping in it. A gifted liberal/socialist leaning talker...nothing more!!
- Sogui, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1What is with the non stories hitting the front page nonstop? McCain never set a timetable for 2013, he was extremely reserved about even mentioning a specific year that he'd like to see our troops back.
Meanwhile, to anyone who isn't living in their own deluded reality, the explanation of our intervention in Kuwait to secure oil channels make a hell of a lot more sense than what we're doing in Iraq this time around. - Pollmak, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I think he should just stay out of politics and enjoy the wealth he has with his wealthy wife.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Because google is the legitimate source of determining whether it's a war or an occupation.
In fact, by the Hague Conventions of 1907 Iraq is even BEYOND occupation.
Art. 42.(Hague Conventions of 1907)
"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War;". This has never been done & as such America is NOT AT WAR with Iraq.
You can spin what you like but I'd take the US Constitution & Hague Conventions as slightly better references than a google search! - harry8227, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Kind of reminds me of Hillary
- wayzup, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1At this point, my mind cannot be changed in regards to John McCain. I think he is a liar, a double-speaker who says what he thinks the majority of the crowd in front of him wants to hear (nevermind what he's said on the same topic not long before) and a duplicate in terms of effectiveness at being President as we've seen from Dumbya Bush.
I hope upon hope that he gets exposed in the general election debates and also hope upon hope that the mainstream media will actually do their @#)(*$&)(*! jobs and take him to task on his frequent 'flip flopping' like they did John Kerry back in '04. So far, the media has been absent in terms of calling McCan't out on a number of discrepancies (to put it lightly) but if that continues to be the case come Fall, then you know the fix is in. - banderwocky, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I would like to think that senility is the culprit here, but in reality, it's John Sidney McCain III consciously wanting to continue the military industrial complex agenda.
- schif, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1and at the end of the video McCain admits that the Iraq war was about oil not the "war on terror".
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 