Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

f-d,
He was never asked to vote on it.

He has shown no stones when it comes to tough votes, including continuing funding of the war.

His statements from the past rarely reflect the Barrack we've seen over the last year.

Only a fanboy would believe Obama of 2002 would've voted differently. Being in federal office would've changed his statements, his colleagues and his voting...because history has shown it has.

I still don't understand what you're looking for here.

Dang, f-d, how many times do I need to type it.

I want a candidate that forms policies based on the best information available and not just what his handlers are telling him to sya this week. In the case of war strategy, the best information comes from the generals, the diplomats, the allies and seeing firsthand.

How much clearer can I get?

How do you find it acceptable to form a major policy based on less than the best information available?

Isn't that something that you'd accuse the Bush adminsitration of doing?

Jib-Jab
linc

Dang, f-d, how many times do I need to type it.

I want a candidate that forms policies based on the best information available and not just what his handlers are telling him to sya this week. In the case of war strategy, the best information comes from the generals, the diplomats, the allies and seeing firsthand.

How much clearer can I get?

I don't understand how you think it's realistic for a Senator to have access to all the information and resources the President does.

His plan, pretty simply states his objective: get out as quickly and safely as possible. That's what his boss (the voters) want. He has said he will hand that task over to his military leaders.

You're not going to get a minute by minute account of his war strategy in a campaign. Sorry.

So, Obama can't talk with Petraeus when he was in DC? Can't schedule a meeting with Crocker ot the new general taking over? Can't make a trip to Iraq and get a briefing?

I think I realize the disconnect we're having.

You're talking about the Press Clip Obama. I'm discussing the Reality Based Obama. Press Clip Obama moves effortlessly from flip to flop with nary a contradiction. PC Obama can create a strategy based on newspaper headlines and polls. PC Obama's dangerous lack of experience is a refreshing change.

RB Obama talks about dangers to the 4th Amendment and votes for FISA. RB Obama croons about the Iraq War and votes to fund it. RB Obama talks about the politics of change, but has as many skeletons, shady financial deals, vote-tossing issues as any other politician. RB Obama spent half his time in office running for the next office (a fact, f-d).

So, I apologize for not recognizing this sooner and causing the grief. In the future, I'll refer to RB Obama, to avoid the confusion.

Only a fanboy would believe Obama of 2002 would've voted differently. Being in federal office would've changed his statements, his colleagues and his voting...because history has shown it has.

Not a fanboy, I just deal in facts. You can dislike the facts, but that doesn't change anything.

So, Obama can't talk with Petraeus when he was in DC? Can't schedule a meeting with Crocker ot the new general taking over? Can't make a trip to Iraq and get a briefing?

I think I realize the disconnect we're having.

He can talk to whoever he wants, but sitting down with the General for a chat isn't going to give him what he needs.

Sitting down the with General and all the other military advisors at his disposal as President will give him the full picture. Even then, it's not his job to come up with the plan. He's going to have oversight and final say (in some ways), but he's essentially giving direction as President and getting feedback on the best way to execute that direction.

f-d,
I apologize regarding the RB Obama thing. It was unneccessarily snarky.

I'd prefer a candidate who has a plan I can review and "vote on," so to speak. You're comfortable trusting Obama's word and assuming his strategy will be sound.

I'm just not willing to give a politician the benefit of the doubt considering it's within his capacity to meet with the right people in order to gain a better understanding.

As far as "facts," I think polls are not facts. I also think that trusting without question that Obama's rhetoric would match his vote is misguided, given recent actions (again, as the facts present themselves, his votes have not matched his rhetoric).

You can claim sole mastery of facts, but I think it's a matter of perspective which facts you give weight. Rhetoric doesn't move me much. Votes, actions, and track record seem like better facts to judge a politician.

Capitalism is fine. Runaway government spending is the problem.

They're connected. I'm not confusing anything.

Where do you think the runaway government spending is going and why do you think it's almost impossible to put a lid on it?

I stand by my statement that unchecked capitalism is a destructive thing.

I'm just not willing to give a politician the benefit of the doubt considering it's within his capacity to meet with the right people in order to gain a better understanding.

We disagree on that note and that's really the meat of it.

I don't "trust" any politican completely. All you can really do is align your beliefs as closely as you can to one of two guys chosen by mysterious marketing organizations called the Republicans and Democrats.

I do not expect McCain nor Obama to have the ability to talk to people and gain enough understanding on any topics as complicated as this one to give us a plan that is realistic and will work in any amount of great detail.

I expect a candidate to be say "This is what I plan to do and want to do" in very general terms and hope he and his advisors find a way to make it happen safely.

If Obama is completely unable to resolve the Iraq situation or he removes troops against military advisors in a reckless way that costs Americans lives, he'll pay a politcal price for it...he won't get re-elected.

That's the only recourse we really have. Vote for the guy who lines up most with your beliefs, hope he accomplishes some of his more important goals, and boot him in 4 years if he's a dud.

boot him in 4 years if he's a dud*

Unless his opponent is a bigger dud (see 2004.)

Unless his opponent is a bigger dud (see 2004.)

Indeed.

Where do you think the runaway government spending is going and why do you think it's almost impossible to put a lid on it?

I think the money's passing through the government to pay for entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicaid, to pay for needed things and to pay for a boatload of bureaucrats and special interest projects.

It's impossible to put a lid on it because a lot of the spending is mandatory or fixed and the portion of discretionary spending is far less.

I'm not sure how government spending is tied to capitalism when the government isn't seeking to obtain and manage capital assets. It's acting more as a wealth distribution organization with certain other duties, like roadway improvements and military defense.

The Washington Post takes Obama to task, as well.

The Iron Timetable
Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008; A16

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

I think the money's passing through the government to pay for entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicaid, to pay for needed things and to pay for a boatload of bureaucrats and special interest projects.

It's impossible to put a lid on it because a lot of the spending is mandatory or fixed and the portion of discretionary spending is far less.

I think I let you pull your Republican Mind Trick on me and derail the conversation. I realize this is pointless.

Uber, you of course realize that if this were the 1950's, your "pinko tendencies" would have been dealt with "in a manner most American".

God Bless "the new" America- where anyone can "see the light" and change his opinion freely.

Not really election related, but Bush has decided to "appease terrorists".


Yo, click it

Anyone sense any hypocrisy here?


Why doesn't Bush just steal Obama's playbook for cryin out loud?

I guess better late than never (for a little common sense)...

Next thing you know, he'll start giving Laura Hezbollah-style fist jabs in public.

F-d, I was thinking instead that Bush was gonna show up to the Greek Picnic

The Obama ads showing McCain hugging and kissing Bush could backfire and I think are moronic, strategically speaking. You have to be a real moron to think that McCain is an extension of the Bush Administration.


And I think McCain's latest ads kinda dancing around castigating Obama's message of "Hope" are somewhat smart.


Just talking strategically here, my interests are somewhat like the All Star game last night. Slight lean to the AL/Elephants but it really won't affect my life that much one way or the other.

Damn.

Giving up already, Glenn?

The Obama ads showing McCain hugging and kissing Bush could backfire and I think are moronic


Look at at who they are targeted at.


These are the same people who vote for Clinton (or pick your Republican here) because of a picture of Obama in African garb, etc. Maybe "dumbing it down" is more effective than you think when it comes to this demographic.

even if you aren't a jib-jab fan, make sure you watch the end of the video closely...
click here

Meh. I liked it better when NC Saints posted it at the top of this page.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207