New McCain ad

[Silence]

Well I guess Obama could come out with an ad that talks about McCain voting against funding for the troops, McCain voting against the GI bill, McCain voting against the Time Between Troop Deployments bill, and any number of bills that McCain has voted against that would've helped our military.

 

[DavidS]

What do you guys think? Will it be effective?

No, because people hate anything to do with the Iraq war right now and want it to be over with. And we all know, from the debate on Friday night, Obama voted No because there was no timeline for withdrawl from Iraq attached to that. Just as McCain doesn't want to give Paulson a blank check w/o pre-conditions, Obama didn't want to give Bush a blank check w/o pre-conditions.

 

[PeterS]

Nice spin except:

McCain believes in the mission and its successful outcome.

ergo

if he votes against a particular bill it's because it's polluted.


Obama can't make that claim because he wants to surrender to a beaten enemy who has no possible way of winning except if liberals like you and Obama GIVE them their victory.

Obama's vote pertained to a bill that supported a polluted war and you seem to forget that neither the Sunni or Shiite's in Iraq are our enemy nor would we have to deal with al-Qaeda in Iraq had McCain and other neocons fought as hard at pursuing bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan as they have their war against anyone but bin Laden.

You cannot have a victory when you construct a war on fallacies and that is what you have done...

 

[PeterS]

The corallary being:

Surrender, and him winning, is all that Obama thinks about!

Surrendering What?

 

[jreeves]

Not really cuz McCain voted against funding too as Obama pointed out.. it was a question of timeline disagreements not about funding the troops

Really, so either cut and run or don't fund our troops I understand now.

 

[PeterS]

Surrendering What?

Wasn't the objective to eliminate Saddam and deliver democracy to Iraq? How is leaving cut and run?

 

[jreeves]

Wasn't the objective to eliminate Saddam and deliver democracy to Iraq? How is leaving cut and run?

The objective was to leave Iraq stable so that it isn't a safe haven for terrorism. If Obama would have had his way, Iraq would be a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. After all, under Obama's original plan we would have been out of Iraq last April.

 

[PeterS]

The objective was to leave Iraq stable so that it isn't a safe haven for terrorism. If Obama would have had his way, Iraq would be a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.

There wouldn't be an opportunity for Iraq to be a safe haven for terrorism if we hadn't been satisfied with marginalizing bin Laden instead of eliminating him.

After all, under Obama's original plan we would have been out of Iraq last April.-

...and concentrating on bin Laden today.

You left that part out. Just thought I'd help you out...

 

[Silence]

Really, so either cut and run or don't fund our troops I understand now.

the reverse is true for McCain....either allow us to stay there forever or no funding for our troops... I understand now too...

Most americans want our troops out of Iraq... are you so retarded that you don't understand this fact? Obama voting against a war with no end in sight won't be seen as a bad thing by most americans.

McCain refusing to vote for funding simply because it had a timeline for withdrawl won't play nearly as well...

 

[jreeves]

There wouldn't be an opportunity for Iraq to be a safe haven for terrorism if we hadn't been satisfied with marginalizing bin Laden instead of eliminating him.



...and concentrating on bin Laden today.

You left that part out. Just thought I'd help you out...

BS...


The public evidence of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist government’s contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.


So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? That’s the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and… …the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.
The federal trial judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.

As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.

As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:

“I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” 22

 

[PeterS]

BS...

View attachment 5961
The public evidence of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist government’s contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.


So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? That’s the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and… …the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.
The federal trial judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.

As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.

As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:

“I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” 22

First, this still does not change the fact that by eliminating bin Laden and al-Qaeda they cannot pose a thread in Iraq nor would there have been anyone for Saddam to support. Second, you need to update your fallacies--Salman Pac and "the Iraqi connection" were shown as charades long ago.

You cons really should get out more.

 

[DiveCon]

First, this still does not change the fact that by eliminating bin Laden and al-Qaeda they cannot pose a thread in Iraq nor would there have been anyone for Saddam to support. Second, you need to update your fallacies--Salman Pac and "the Iraqi connection" were shown as charades long ago.

You cons really should get out more.

that is so overly simplistic its ridiculous

 

[PeterS]

that is so overly simplistic its ridiculous

If you deal with bin Laden he is not a problem. That may be simplistic but it is also true.

 

[DiveCon]

If you deal with bin Laden he is not a problem. That may be simplistic but it is also true.

getting bin laden doesnt end the fight with Al Qaeda
and btw, Salman Pak was not debunked