McCain shows his 'foreign expertise' in Jordan

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Then I guess you can disqualify anyone involved in American, British, Australian or Israeli intelligence from candidacy.

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

the video BTW

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

All three countries held investigations and blamed widespread intelligence failure. Most everything else is speculation and often tainted by personalities of questionable credibility.

[shinerbock]

I don't want a shakeup that involves less autonomy, larger government, a weaker stance on terror, and Tribe-like SCOTUS justices. Sorry.

[PeppyGPhiB]

A slip of the tongue is one thing, but I'm not so sure that's what this was. If he doesn't understand the difference between the two Muslim sects or the "organizations" that support them (Al-Q vs. general insurgents), that's a problem. And after reading the comments in full and in context, it doesn't really seem like it was just a slip of the tongue, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening.

On a separate note, I agree with the "dude's old" comments. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time he would take office, he'd be older than Reagan was. I think McCain's running mate will become very important to his candidacy, and that we'll start to hear a lot more about his age as the selection of that running mate approaches.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't want a shakeup that involves less autonomy, larger government, a weaker stance on terror, and Tribe-like SCOTUS justices. Sorry.

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

Do I hint sarcasm? I agree completely though, Bush is the complete opposite of what a conservative should be.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Do I hint sarcasm?

Who, me?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.

[DaemonSeid]

Opinion
McCain: A History of Being Wrong About Al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran


Adam Blickstein Thu Mar 20, 2:58 PM ET

John McCain on several occasions recently has asserted that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together, including last month in Houston, Texas. The facts are much more complicated. McCain's assertions directly contradict General Petraeus who stated just yesterday that Al Qaeda weapons and suicide bombers actually come primarily through Syria.

McCain made the same mistake in 2002, before the Iraq War, when he claimed that Iraq would be part of a "weapons assembly line for al-Qaeda's network." In reality the 9/11 Commission and a recent Pentagon report found no operational relationship.

McCain, too often mistaken for a purported national security expert, conflates and confuses various regional players -- the same kind of dangerous oversimplification that pushed us into war five years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...4_200803201358



I'm still wondering how people figure that this is the best possibly experienced nominee if there is and has been, in this writer's opinion, constant confusion about who is the enemy?

I will really cringe if he ever lets slip... "Well they all look alike..."

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.

Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.