Obamas Military advisor...100 years in Iraq

[Cypress]

Look up the definition of strawman. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Additionally, maybe you should post your own thoughts once in a while. I'm pretty sick and fucking tired of ripping your posts to shreds only to get a response of "buy the book" or "I only repeated what was in the article." Stand by your convictions, if you have any.

And you did say this, which seems to suggest that you think McPeak is Obama's leading military advisor:




And hiding behind the article isn't going to cut it. As I said, quit reading that bullshit and uncritically reprinting it here and repeating it's assertions as fact because that only ends up with you looking like an idiot.

Finally, McPeak was against the war from the get go and was giving his opinion as to the likely outcome. So no, he is not a warmonger. He didn't want to go to war in the first place.

I'm pretty sick and fucking tired of ripping your posts to shreds only to get a response of "buy the book" or "I only repeated what was in the article." Stand by your convictions, if you have any.


LOL

This is always a classic. Embarrased closet bush voters claiming to be doing a public service by only reporting what was written.

Honest injun! I don't care about race, skin color, or using pastor wright to win election! I'm just reporting what was in the article!

 

[blackascoal]

On that we agree. There is not a way any of the three candidates can do this cleanly. So they must take the route they deem the least likely to cause further damage in both the short and long run. Obviously they have different opinions on how to go about doing that.

Side note... I guess the final answer is that McPeak is also a warmonger by the standards of this board.

McPeak IS a warmonger for suggesting a 100 year stay .. which would be impossible.

We agree that there is no clean way out of Hell.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look up the definition of strawman. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Additionally, maybe you should post your own thoughts once in a while. I'm pretty sick and fucking tired of ripping your posts to shreds only to get a response of "buy the book" or "I only repeated what was in the article." Stand by your convictions, if you have any.

And you did say this, which seems to suggest that you think McPeak is Obama's leading military advisor:

And hiding behind the article isn't going to cut it. As I said, quit reading that bullshit and uncritically reprinting it here and repeating it's assertions as fact because that only ends up with you looking like an idiot.

Finally, McPeak was against the war from the get go and was giving his opinion as to the likely outcome. So no, he is not a warmonger. He didn't want to go to war in the first place.

God you are a fucking twit..... A strawman is when you misrepresent my position and then attack your version of my opinion. Which is exactly what you did. Idiot.

I asked you a fucking question based on the article. You all stated that the "100 years in Iraq" was evidence of McCain being a warmonger. Clearly McPeak said the same thing (except he also wanted to be dictator to the Iraqis rather than let them vote). So I asked you if he too was a warmonger for stating the same thing that you use as "evidence" that McCain is a warmonger.

Also... if you don't like the NY Times piece tough shit. How many countless threads are started based on articles from moveon.org, huffingtonpost, dailykos, etc....???

and yes, I know Krauthammer is a righty...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nope, Desh and I agree on many things , but she is left of me.
I just view the Bush McSame idealistic view of let em vote and they will love us a dipshit dumb.

I didn't mean converting you to all of her views... I meant in her campaign to get people to call McCain.... McSame.

 

[uscitizen]

I didn't mean converting you to all of her views... I meant in her campaign to get people to call McCain.... McSame.

Ohh, yes we do agree on that point. I thanked for for the McSame handle.

I coined the McClown handle for him.

McSame Clown ? that works pretty well too.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm pretty sick and fucking tired of ripping your posts to shreds only to get a response of "buy the book" or "I only repeated what was in the article." Stand by your convictions, if you have any.


LOL

This is always a classic. Embarrased closet bush voters claiming to be doing a public service by only reporting what was written.

Honest injun! I don't care about race, skin color, or using pastor wright to win election! I'm just reporting what was in the article!

Good boy Gumby... way to give a good example of a strawman.

 

[uscitizen]

As I have said for years, this will go down in history as part of the oil wars.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ohh, yes we do agree on that point. I thanked for for the McSame handle.

I coined the McClown handle for him.

McSame Clown ? that works pretty well too.

ahh... but you cannot use Clown without being sued for copywrite infringement by the Clowntoons. The feel it is just too close to their wonderful childish label and thus would confuse their idiotic Dem constituents.... and we all know how easy it is to trick (Dem Congressional leaders) and confuse (Florida Dem voters) you wacky Dems.

 

[Bonestorm]

God you are a fucking twit..... A strawman is when you misrepresent my position and then attack your version of my opinion. Which is exactly what you did. Idiot.

I asked you a fucking question based on the article. You all stated that the "100 years in Iraq" was evidence of McCain being a warmonger. Clearly McPeak said the same thing (except he also wanted to be dictator to the Iraqis rather than let them vote). So I asked you if he too was a warmonger for stating the same thing that you use as "evidence" that McCain is a warmonger.

Also... if you don't like the NY Times piece tough shit. How many countless threads are started based on articles from moveon.org, huffingtonpost, dailykos, etc....???

and yes, I know Krauthammer is a righty...

No, he's not a warmonger. He didn't want to go to war in the first place. It's not that difficult a distinction. Really.

As for the "article," it's an op-ed first of all. And it's from the Washington Post, not the NY Times. Secondly, I don't mind op-eds that are based on facts. They're fine. I also don't care about the source, I care about the veracity of the information the source provides. It's the bullshit that really bothers me. And this was bullshit. And you repeated the bullshit. That bothers me too. And you didn't even stand behind the bullshit that you repeated or acknowledge that the bullshit was, in fact, bullshit. That bothers me even more.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, he's not a warmonger. He didn't want to go to war in the first place. It's not that difficult a distinction. Really.

As for the "article," it's an op-ed first of all. And it's from the Washington Post, not the NY Times. Secondly, I don't mind op-eds that are based on facts. They're fine. I also don't care about the source, I care about the veracity of the information the source provides. It's the bullshit that really bothers me. And this was bullshit. And you repeated the bullshit. That bothers me too. And you didn't even stand behind the bullshit that you repeated or acknowledge that the bullshit was, in fact, bullshit. That bothers me even more.

Ok... so we have established then that the simple comment "100 years in Iraq" doesn't make someone a warmonger. Good. I am glad that is settled. Now be sure to pass that along to your idiotic leaders in the Dem party that continue to spew forth their lies.

What was bullshit about stating the idiocy of those that continue to misrepresent what McCain said?

McCain was quite clear in his message, yet you and many other Dems... especially your party leaders continue to play like McCain said we would have 100 years of war.

It is not bullshit to repeat what McPeak stated.... I think the point you have learned is that anyone can have their comments twisted and turned into something that was not intended.

The difference is that you got all bent out of shape when I did it to McPeak, but you are quite fine with people doing it to McCain.

Thank you for proving your hypocricy.

 

[uscitizen]

LOL, the premise this thread is based on is BS. and who started it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok... so we have established then that the simple comment "100 years in Iraq" doesn't make someone a warmonger. Good. I am glad that is settled. Now be sure to pass that along to your idiotic leaders in the Dem party that continue to spew forth their lies.

What was bullshit about stating the idiocy of those that continue to misrepresent what McCain said?

McCain was quite clear in his message, yet you and many other Dems... especially your party leaders continue to play like McCain said we would have 100 years of war.

It is not bullshit to repeat what McPeak stated.... I think the point you have learned is that anyone can have their comments twisted and turned into something that was not intended.

The difference is that you got all bent out of shape when I did it to McPeak, but you are quite fine with people doing it to McCain.

Thank you for proving your hypocricy.

This is pretty old-hat. You seem to think that McCain's 100 years comment is the only thing that makes him a warmonger. That isn't the case. There's plenty of other stuff that supports that view.

In any event, I fail to see how it is hypocritical to point out that one guy who likes war is a warmonger while another guy that doesn't like war is not.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is pretty old-hat. You seem to think that McCain's 100 years comment is the only thing that makes him a warmonger. That isn't the case. There's plenty of other stuff that supports that view, not least of which is McCain's statement in 2003 that Iraq should have been dealt with in 1998, McCain's insistends

Please provide your evidence of other things... because when we asked before all we kept getting were the misconstrued "100 years" comment and the "he sang a song about bombing Iran" misrepresentation.

Stating that we should have dealt with Iraq in 1998 is not warmongering you twit. Had we done so back then... forced the UN to do its job... then we would not have been in this mess today as it would have been resolved before Bush ever came to office. Millions of Iraqis would not have starved under the corrupt oil for food fiasco.

Instead Clowntoon and the UN let Saddam continue his murderous regime, starving his people all the while lobbing a couple of missles at him and doing nothing to hold him to the ceasefire agreement.

Was Bush a failure in his actions in Iraq... yes.... as were Clinton and the UN.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is pretty old-hat. You seem to think that McCain's 100 years comment is the only thing that makes him a warmonger. That isn't the case. There's plenty of other stuff that supports that view.

In any event, I fail to see how it is hypocritical to point out that one guy who likes war is a warmonger while another guy that doesn't like war is not.

That is not what was hypocritical. The hypocritical part is calling McCain a warmonger for stating "100 years" and then acting like it is no big deal that McPeak said the same.

Also.... it is a complete fallacy to say that McCain "likes war". That is nothing but spin from the left. You should quit reading their bullshit and uncritically reprinting it here and repeating it's assertions as fact because that only ends up with you looking like an idiot.

 

[Cancel7]

Please explain why every post you or I make to each other has to have some ulterior motive?

What's up with that?

Some people haven’t had sex in a long time, or are only having very boring sex. Usually they’re Americans. Add that into the American craziness surrounding race, and you have instant titillation anytime a black man and a white woman are seen talking.

 

[Bonestorm]

That is not what was hypocritical. The hypocritical part is calling McCain a warmonger for stating "100 years" and then acting like it is no big deal that McPeak said the same.

Also.... it is a complete fallacy to say that McCain "likes war". That is nothing but spin from the left. You should quit reading their bullshit and uncritically reprinting it here and repeating it's assertions as fact because that only ends up with you looking like an idiot.

It is no big deal when a guy that opposes the war says that the US will be in Iraq for 100 years. It seems pretty fucking clear by his opposition to the war in the first place that a 100 year presence or any presence at all for that matter is not "desirable."

Again, not a difficult concept to comprehend.

If you want to look at why McCain is considered a war-monger I will indulge you:

1) Support for this war, and ongoing support for this war, and support for increasing troops in this war.

2) Threatening Iran.

3) Support for war against Iraq in 1998.

4) Support for war against North Korea in 1994, 1999 and 2002.

5) His support, dating back to at least 1999, of what he called "rogue state rollback"

6) His support for a land invasion in Serbia.


I'm not counting, but there are few foreign policy situations wherein he isn't an advocate of war.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is no big deal when a guy that opposes the war says that the US will be in Iraq for 100 years. It seems pretty fucking clear by his opposition to the war in the first place that a 100 year presence or any presence at all for that matter is not "desirable."

Again, not a difficult concept to comprehend.

If you want to look at why McCain is considered a war-monger I will indulge you:

1) Support for this war, and ongoing support for this war, and support for increasing troops in this war.

2) Threatening Iran.

3) Support for war against Iraq in 1998.

4) Support for war against North Korea in 1994, 1999 and 2002.

5) His support, dating back to at least 1999, of what he called "rogue state rollback"

6) His support for a land invasion in Serbia.


I'm not counting, but there are few foreign policy situations wherein he isn't an advocate of war.

Ok... I'll bite...

1) Yes, he supports the ongoing war as to him that is the best way to end the mess Bush created.

2) When did he threaten war with Iran? Oh yeah... he sang a song and then immediately said we should work via diplomacy. But you were going to spin away weren't you?

3) Again, he said Iraq should be dealt with. Show me where he advocated war without diplomacy first.

4) Please link us to the go to war with N. Korea comments he made.

5) Where in his rougue state rollback did he suggest war? I thought he stated we should isolate N. Korea and sanction them through the UN. Refuse to negotiate until N. Korea disarmed its nuclear program. Please show me where this advocates war.

6) Yes, many thought sending in ground troops vs. dropping millions of tons of bombs on the population would reduce the number of casualites among the civilian population. This is not a question of should we act, but a matter of a difference of opinion on how we should act.

 

[Cypress]

It is no big deal when a guy that opposes the war says that the US will be in Iraq for 100 years. It seems pretty fucking clear by his opposition to the war in the first place that a 100 year presence or any presence at all for that matter is not "desirable."

Again, not a difficult concept to comprehend.

If you want to look at why McCain is considered a war-monger I will indulge you:

1) Support for this war, and ongoing support for this war, and support for increasing troops in this war.

2) Threatening Iran.

3) Support for war against Iraq in 1998.

4) Support for war against North Korea in 1994, 1999 and 2002.

5) His support, dating back to at least 1999, of what he called "rogue state rollback"

6) His support for a land invasion in Serbia.


I'm not counting, but there are few foreign policy situations wherein he isn't an advocate of war.

supertool might as well as written his entire premise in crayon.

It's another pathetic "see, democrats do it to!" justification to keep voting for failed republican policies.

McPeak was against the war going in. So was samantha powers. Obama was too. I suspect most, if not all, of his foreign policy and national security advisors were on the RIGHT side of the decision to invade iraq.

They wouldn't have invaded.

McCain still thinks the Iraq war was a great idea, so totally worth three trillion dollars and a million dead people. That alone makes him a war monger, in addition to the plethora of lies and saber rattling he is prone to doing.

 

[uscitizen]

I find it amusing that Sf forgets that McSame made the war his main issue in his bid for the republican nomination.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"supertool might as well as written his entire premise in crayon. "

Translation... when our guy says it, it is what he meant it to be. But when your guy says the same thing he is a warmonger.

"It's another pathetic "see, democrats do it to!" justification to keep voting for failed republican policies. "

The above is quite funny Gumby.... considering your 3000 posts on white religious leaders comments and your feeble attempts to equate their relationship with Reps to Wright's relationship with Obama. What is next???? The 3001st thread about "they do it too!"???

Idiot.

"McPeak was against the war going in. So was samantha powers. Obama was too. I suspect most, if not all, of his foreign policy and national security advisors were on the RIGHT side of the decision to invade iraq."

All of which is completely irrelevant to your non-stop bullshit using McCains "100 years" comment as your evidence he is a warmonger.


McCain still thinks the Iraq war was a great idea, so totally worth three trillion dollars and a million dead people. That alone makes him a war monger, in addition to the plethora of lies and saber rattling he is prone to doing.

A million dead? You just cannot stop lying can you Gumby?