Obamas Military advisor...100 years in Iraq

The man said that when he thought we had good reason to be in Iraq.



We now all know there is no WMDs and AQ ties and that we went in for other reasons the American people were not told about.


This guy has left your party because of the lies people.
 
I agree. IF I were talking about Obama's position. I was talking about McPeak's position. Is McPeak a warmonger by your standards for making such a statement?

Because as memory serves... that is exactly what got McCain labeled as a warmonger by you and many others.

If Jesus said we should be in Iraq for 100 years .. he would be a warmonger.
 
I agree. IF I were talking about Obama's position. I was talking about McPeak's position. Is McPeak a warmonger by your standards for making such a statement?

Because as memory serves... that is exactly what got McCain labeled as a warmonger by you and many others.

McSame has said several times he is for the war.
The 100 yr comment was just further proof.
 
He has realized the complete bullshit the R party dishes is harming America and no linger wants any part of it.

He used to argree with the Bush / McSame plan and now knows better.
 
So Obama, who has NO military background isn't going to listen to his leading military advisor?

Obama has as his leading military advisor a man who said exactly the same thing as McCain and you do not call McPeak a warmonger like you do McCain?

The ONLY bullshit is your attempt at a strawman... my post was talking about Obama's leading military advisor... not about Obama himself. Either learn to comprehend what you read or if you are already comprehending it.... stop with the idiotic strawmen.


Accusing me of building up strawmen when you attack Obama by attacking one of Obama's military advisers is hilarious.

Additionally, the idea that one of Obama's advisers (not "Obama's leading military advisor" as you claim) who did not support the war and viewed the war as a disaster from the beginning stating that the best hope for the war after the war had begun is a 100 year presence in Iraq as opposed to an immediate Iraqi democracy which would be harshly anti-American in support of the proposition that McPeak "said the exact same thing as McCain" is fucking laughably hilarious.

Here's a hint asshole: quit trolling right-wing op-eds on Real Clear Politics. They're full of shit. They lie to you and mislead you. When you come here uncritically spouting their bullshit you end up looking like a fool. At least they get paid for it.

By the way, here is the full context of McPeak's comments:


We'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right. I'll tell you one thing, that it is not something we should hope for, and that's a democratic Iraq. When I hear the president talking about democracy, the last thing we should want is an election in Iraq. I mean, we're not very popular. So I don't think we'll see any open elections in Iraq for a long time. And hopefully, over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany - Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea. Here were autocratic governments brought around to really nice democracies, successful democracies. Creating a successful democracy in Iraq is going to take longer, and we may be there longer as a consequence.

Tool.
 
Last edited:
And...

1. leaving a strong enough force to protect our Embassy. (How strong would it need to be in that place? And those guys would still be in Iraq, in fact stationed there... hmmm....)

2. Staying in and around the area (the reason we were attacked by al-Qaeda according to them is that we are in and around the area) so that we can quickly go back in if extremists make bases there.

(not saying you are wrong, just giving the larger picture that he talks about.)

There is no avoiding our Saigon moment in Iraq.

Leaving a small force would subject them to even greater danger and there is no way we can sustain a large force in Iraq much longer.

Iraq belongs to Iran because the American right-wing handed it to Iran.

Obama is a realist and the state of conditions on the ground will dictate removing all US forces from Iraq.

Leaving a small force as he suggest can only work for a short time .. as he suggests.

Once we get out .. there is no going back.
 
McSame has said several times he is for the war.
The 100 yr comment was just further proof.
The 100 year comment was simply a way to show that, like in Germany, if they are not getting killed the US doesn't object to stationing people overseas. It showed that people object to them fighting and getting killed, but if we could gain peace people would not object to them being stationed there.
 
More proxy horseshit.

McPeak is not Obama. He's free to have his own opinions on things, but it's Obama's opinion that matters, not McPeak's.

Are you really this fucking dense or do you just play the moron on message boards?

I think it's real.
 
There is no avoiding our Saigon moment in Iraq.

Leaving a small force would subject them to even greater danger and there is no way we can sustain a large force in Iraq much longer.

Iraq belongs to Iran because the American right-wing handed it to Iran.

Obama is a realist and the state of conditions on the ground will dictate removing all US forces from Iraq.

Leaving a small force as he suggest can only work for a short time .. as he suggests.

Once we get out .. there is no going back.
Again, how many will we have to leave to protect the Embassy? Just saying, "He is a realist" when it is actually what he says he will do is pretense or ignoring what you don't want to hear from your own candidate.

Barack says he will leave forces in Iraq to protect the Embassy. I ask how many it will take to do so.

Barack says he will leave forces in the area for quick re-entry if extremists use Iraq as a place to put bases. al-Qaeda objects to us being in S.A. and other holy areas, that is where the forces will go. I ask will this continue the same policies that got us attacked to begin with...
 
Adviser"s" ???

An adviser (singular) is there to suggest, not to make policy .. and only an idiot would believe this is something Obama wants.

Can't defeat the man .. use anyone around him in the attempt.

Desperation is stinky. Someone should spray some air freshener around Damo and Superfreak’s posts.
 
The 100 year comment was simply a way to show that, like in Germany, if they are not getting killed the US doesn't object to stationing people overseas. It showed that people object to them fighting and getting killed, but if we could gain peace people would not object to them being stationed there.

As I said damo just further proof that McSame wants to keep us in Iraq.
You McSameites can pretend that McSame did not make his run on the primary based on the war if you want to.

Just label me Antisametic.
 
Desperation is stinky. Someone should spray some air freshener around Damo and Superfreak’s posts.
When he comes, suddenly you can't determine sarcasm either even with smilies and !!!111shiftplusone!!11!! added...
 
As I said damo just further proof that McSame wants to keep us in Iraq.
You McSameites can pretend that McSame did not make his run on the primary based on the war if you want to.

Just label me Antisametic.
Your lame suggestion that I support McCain is inane. I have already said that since he does not support the dissolution of the WPA he will not get my vote. Please read that comment and take it seriously, it isn't sarcasm and it is actually how I will vote. He does not meet the criteria of what I want from a candidate.

That doesn't change that I understand the difference of a remark suggesting we should stay at war for 100 years and one that says that we station people overseas in areas where they are safe all the time.

Nor does it make it so I will vote for a different candidate that meets even less of the criteria that I want in a candidate.
 
When he comes, suddenly you can't determine sarcasm either even with smilies and !!!111shiftplusone!!11!! added...

I’m very happy to see bac back, but his presence had nothing to do with my ability to discern your intent. I never can, and here’s why – you are desperate for McCain to win because you would do anything to avoid a Dem win. So no one can discern the “sarcasm” in your posts, because they’re really not sarcastic. You don’t’ give a fig what takes Obama down. You just want him down.

So give me a break Damo. Just come out of the closet already! You would be 80 times less annoying if you would just come out of the closet. Put up a big “Vote McCain”! banner and you’ll be free.
 
The man said that when he thought we had good reason to be in Iraq.



We now all know there is no WMDs and AQ ties and that we went in for other reasons the American people were not told about.


This guy has left your party because of the lies people.

McPeak was against Bush's Iraq policy from the beginning. He wasn't fooled. He worked on Howard Dean's campaign, for God's sake.

In short, McPeak showed good judgement on Iraq from the beginning. Unlike superfreak, Bush, McCain, and damocles.
 
I’m very happy to see bac back, but his presence had nothing to do with my ability to discern your intent. I never can, and here’s why – you are desperate for McCain to win because you would do anything to avoid a Dem win. So no one can discern the “sarcasm” in your posts, because they’re really not sarcastic. You don’t’ give a fig what takes Obama down. You just want him down.

So give me a break Damo. Just come out of the closet already! You would be 80 times less annoying if you would just come out of the closet. Put up a big “Vote McCain”! banner and you’ll be free.
I won't vote for McCain unless he adds that last criteria.

I have three.

1. Balanced Budget Amendment (He supports this)

2. Only fight in formally declared wars. (He has said nothing against the War Powers Act, therefore won't get my vote).

3. Border (He's changed his tune, but I still don't trust him on this one. However his current position on this is far better than before...)
 
Back
Top