Why im voting for Barack Hussein Obama

[jreeves]

You are conflating issues in a desperately transparent attempt to defend your earlier claim about VFF. Nobody here has said Riekhoff himself isn't partisan. You even provided a link that defeated your own claim then ignore it when it gets pointed out. (Sourcewatch link...)

IAVA is about the Troops, period. VFF is strictly about the WOT POLICY. Where is the mystery?

Looks to me like you hate any organization that helps Troops if they don't suck bush butt cheeks in the process. But an organization that is a self admitted propaganda machine is sparkling clean awwwwllll good. WTF is right!

More from IAVA...
Anyway, I called up Eric Schmeltzer over at the Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) to talk about this. Mr. Schmeltzer was polite and professional in the face of my barrage of accusatory questions, but vehemently denied they were a partisan group, which in my opinion is completely dishonest.

Let me tell you why I say that.

To begin with, it's worth noting that Wesley Clark seems to be a major player in this group. Also, Mr. Schmeltzer confirmed that there are no prominent Republicans working with the group, although he did say they're working on getting one.

Although I was, of course, very skeptical at that point, I figured the proof was in the pudding. That's why, I asked how many Republicans the group was currently backing. Mr. Schmeltzer replied that no candidates had been endorsed yet, although there were currently 9 Democrats and 3 Republicans who could potentially make the cut. Why do I suspect those Republican vets just aren't going to turn out to be IAVA PAC material?

Then there was the next piece of evidence: when you look at IAVA PAC's endorsement criteria, some of them seem non-partisan, but others seem to mirror things called for on the left. For example:


"Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater."

That sounds like a timetable to me. Something the Democrats have demanded and Bush has adamantly refused to give.


"Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict."

Many of us, myself included, would argue that we've done that. Who has been arguing that we haven't? Liberals, who just don't want to go to war, but are afraid they'll sound too dovish if they come right out and say so. Therefore, they take this route so they can claim that they were hawks, too, when the next election rolls around, despite opposing the war.

Then there are all the lefties that are talking about this group. In some places, IAVA PAC is even openly described as an Anti-Bush veterans PAC. Then there are bloggers like Dem Bloggers, Daily Kos, Maxspeak, You Listen! among others talking up IAVA Pac. Trust me, lefty bloggers wouldn't even consider promoting this PAC if they thought there was the slightest chance this group would ever give money to Republicans.

The long and short of it is this: Republicans shouldn't be giving money to the IAVA PAC and quite frankly, if the PAC was more honest they wouldn't even be contacting Republicans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee can call themselves a non-partisan group all day long, but if they end up doing nothing but funneling money to Democratic candidates, then it's pretty clear that they're not a group conservatives would want to support.

Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I'm not saying they don't do great things for US troops only that they have a left slant. Which is why I say every PAC has some slant to it.

 

[SkyWater]

More from IAVA...
Anyway, I called up Eric Schmeltzer over at the Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) to talk about this. Mr. Schmeltzer was polite and professional in the face of my barrage of accusatory questions, but vehemently denied they were a partisan group, which in my opinion is completely dishonest.

Let me tell you why I say that.

To begin with, it's worth noting that Wesley Clark seems to be a major player in this group. Also, Mr. Schmeltzer confirmed that there are no prominent Republicans working with the group, although he did say they're working on getting one.

Although I was, of course, very skeptical at that point, I figured the proof was in the pudding. That's why, I asked how many Republicans the group was currently backing. Mr. Schmeltzer replied that no candidates had been endorsed yet, although there were currently 9 Democrats and 3 Republicans who could potentially make the cut. Why do I suspect those Republican vets just aren't going to turn out to be IAVA PAC material?

Then there was the next piece of evidence: when you look at IAVA PAC's endorsement criteria, some of them seem non-partisan, but others seem to mirror things called for on the left. For example:


"Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater."

That sounds like a timetable to me. Something the Democrats have demanded and Bush has adamantly refused to give.


"Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict."

Many of us, myself included, would argue that we've done that. Who has been arguing that we haven't? Liberals, who just don't want to go to war, but are afraid they'll sound too dovish if they come right out and say so. Therefore, they take this route so they can claim that they were hawks, too, when the next election rolls around, despite opposing the war.

Then there are all the lefties that are talking about this group. In some places, IAVA PAC is even openly described as an Anti-Bush veterans PAC. Then there are bloggers like Dem Bloggers, Daily Kos, Maxspeak, You Listen! among others talking up IAVA Pac. Trust me, lefty bloggers wouldn't even consider promoting this PAC if they thought there was the slightest chance this group would ever give money to Republicans.

The long and short of it is this: Republicans shouldn't be giving money to the IAVA PAC and quite frankly, if the PAC was more honest they wouldn't even be contacting Republicans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee can call themselves a non-partisan group all day long, but if they end up doing nothing but funneling money to Democratic candidates, then it's pretty clear that they're not a group conservatives would want to support.

Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I'm not saying they don't do great things for US troops only that they have a left slant. Which is why I say every PAC has some slant to it.

That was a pretty wasted post because I stopped reading after I got into the second paragraph. Bet you can take a wild guess why. This is at least the third time you have ostensibly ignored points and counterpoints. In a dialogue or debate it is simple courtesy to respond to the other person's points. I have addressed all of yours even in the face of false claims being attributed to my posts, name calling, etc. I refuse to waste energy like a dog chasing its tail. All that has been demonstrated is whenever you cannot respond to evidence you simply pretend it isn't there and go on like it was a totally different conversation. This means it doesn't matter what gets presented because it will get dismissed and another lower colon sausage link will get slapped against the wall hoping the peanuts create a nice faux finish that will be captivating enough to distract from the fact there is no sincere desire to respectability debate issues using available information. I would ask you to stop wasting my time but I don't have to because I can make that happen by simply not feeding into this endless Hannitization fixation. The only way I will respond is if the points that have already been made get addressed. Take care.

 

[jreeves]

That was a pretty wasted post because I stopped reading after I got into the second paragraph. Bet you can take a wild guess why. This is at least the third time you have ostensibly ignored points and counterpoints. In a dialogue or debate it is simple courtesy to respond to the other person's points. I have addressed all of yours even in the face of false claims being attributed to my posts, name calling, etc. I refuse to waste energy like a dog chasing its tail. All that has been demonstrated is whenever you cannot respond to evidence you simply pretend it isn't there and go on like it was a totally different conversation. This means it doesn't matter what gets presented because it will get dismissed and another lower colon sausage link will get slapped against the wall hoping the peanuts create a nice faux finish that will be captivating enough to distract from the fact there is no sincere desire to respectability debate issues using available information. I would ask you to stop wasting my time but I don't have to because I can make that happen by simply not feeding into this endless Hannitization fixation. The only way I will respond is if the points that have already been made get addressed. Take care.

Dog chasing its tail, .....is related to IAVA endorsing 0 republicans for office and stating objectives about the war. But do take care....

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Dog chasing its tail, .....is related to IAVA endorsing 0 republicans for office and stating objectives about the war. But do take care....

According to you they've endorsed nobody yet...meaning 0 Democrats have been endorsed as well.

Setting a timetable and having an exit strategy is not an exclusive liberal or conservative issue. There are many on the right that have supported implementing a timetable and withdrawal. Why do you only see things in black and white?

 

[SkyWater]

According to you they've endorsed nobody yet...meaning 0 Democrats have been endorsed as well.

Setting a timetable and having an exit strategy is not an exclusive liberal or conservative issue. There are many on the right that have supported implementing a timetable and withdrawal. Why do you only see things in black and white?

Even though Bush has flip-flopped this nothing more than November prep because McCain is going to need all the help he can get. Let's pretend for a moment Obama wins and it is now May 12th, 2009...a thread pops up with a title like "Obama Destroys Iraq Democracy." The PR campaign is setting to high gear.



"President Bush agreed to "a general time horizon" for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home"
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.xml

 

[editec]

"Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater."

Demanding a system of accountibility is a bad thing?

I thought that conservative folks were all about accountability and that lack of people taking personal responsibility is the root cause of most of the nation's problems.

Lord knows many of you conservatives complain that the people aren't taking personal responsibility for their own problems.

So why is it that you folks never seem to want to hold the leadership that you supported to that same sort of standard of accountability and responsibility for their actions?

Now, if there is no metric for success in Iraq, how will we know when we've accomplished the mission?

 

[SkyWater]

Demanding a system of accountibility is a bad thing?

I thought that conservative folks were all about accountability and that lack of people taking personal responsibility is the root cause of most of the nation's problems.

Lord knows many of you conservatives complain that the people aren't taking personal responsibility for their own problems.

So why is it that you folks never seem to want to hold the leadership that you supported to that same sort of standard of accountability and responsibility for their actions?

Now, if there is no metric for success in Iraq, how will we know when we've accomplished the mission?

Confusing Bush supporters with Conservatives is a mistake. Us Republicans who know what Conservatism means have done our best to not allow the most Liberal Admin in the past 80 years take over but sadly too many fellow Republicans have given in to peer pressure like a college freshman hitting the bong...and the effects have not been all that different.

 

[jreeves]

According to you they've endorsed nobody yet...meaning 0 Democrats have been endorsed as well.Setting a timetable and having an exit strategy is not an exclusive liberal or conservative issue. There are many on the right that have supported implementing a timetable and withdrawal. Why do you only see things in black and white?

That's not what the artilce states...
Strict withdrawal dates is the wrong policy if you don't believe me ask Patreus. Having withdrawal goals and withdrawing according to the facts on the ground is good policy.

 

[sealybobo]

Wait so this republican partisan group endorssed a Democrat? wow how partisan of them.

You talk so much about partisan because you are partisan.