Liars?

[DRoseDARs]

12) Verto, fix your number.

[Perfection]

15) "Everybody Lies" - Dr. Gregory House

[Ned]

Rufus, not a bad explanation. But that does not explain how a politician can simply change his position so dramatically without explanation and without any serious media questioning. Of course the Washington Times is part of the media. But what really counts are the NY Times, Washington Post and the Networks. They ignore the inconsistencies when their editorial position largely agrees with the new position and is anti-Bush.

At least McCain IS consistent. He was always critical of too few troops, of Rummy and the Bush strategy. His position remans unchanged. This alone is persuading me that McCain is a true leader and not a lying panderer.

[Ned]

BTW, some of these liars are Republicans. I would dearly love the party to toss these RINOs out on their ears now that we no longer control the Senate. Strip them of their rights to attend the Republican caucus and party events. Let them form their own party if they want, or better, let them join the Democrats.

[dannubis]

Ned is a repug ????

[Berzerker]

Rufus, not a bad explanation.

A very good one

But that does not explain how a politician can simply change his position so dramatically without explanation and without any serious media questioning.

So we've gone from many liars to a politician? What politician? Lots of people have changed their minds after seeing every prediction made by the pro war side turn out bogus. Funny how the liars aren't the people who made those predictions, just the people who no longer believe them.

At least McCain IS consistent.

Yup, he fought in Vietnam and now he's helping to create one for the next generation.

He was always critical of too few troops, of Rummy and the Bush strategy. His position remans unchanged. This alone is persuading me that McCain is a true leader and not a lying panderer.

How is it inconsistent to have wanted a larger force to avoid this mess and now oppose sending a small increase? Doesn't the existence of the mess change the picture - the picture is inconsistent. Lets face it, Congress (and that includes many Repubs) were bullied into this by fascists who repeatedly equated George Bush's wishes with "America" and "the troops".

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ned
This alone is persuading me that McCain is a true leader and not a lying panderer.

*Whistles*

Oh really? I guess I'll post this again for your reading pleasure Ned.

Summary: McCain isn't a lying panderer, he's a lying pandering whore.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9658.html

January 18, 2007
McCain was against lobbying reform before he was for it
Posted 12:30 pm

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), perhaps best known for the campaign finance reform measure that bears his name, sponsored another reform measure that would require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. For McCain, at the time, it was all about his signature domestic policy concern: transparency and accountability in the political process.

This year, McCain opposes the very measure he used to champion.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has told conservative activists that he will vote to strip a key provision on grassroots lobbying from the reform package he previously supported.

The provision would require grassroots organizations to report on their fundraising activities and is strongly opposed by groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

While grassroots groups on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the proposal, social conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts a radio program to hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, have been its most vehement critics.

Asked to explain the complete reversal, McCain’s spokesperson said the senator changed his mind after receiving “feedback” from conservative groups, which, coincidentally, just happen to be some of the same far-right activist organizations McCain hopes to impress for his presidential campaign.

Of course, you know what this means — it’s time to update the list of McCain’s biggest flip-flops as he transforms himself from maverick hero to right-wing hack. We’re up to 15 now.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.” (My note: Then there's this gem, "It was easy, it was easy. I said the military operation would be easy. It was easy. We were greeting as liberators. Look at the films of when we rolled into Baghdad.")

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it. [corrected]

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Remember, McCain still believes his strength as a candidate is his credibility and consistency.

It’s also worth noting that McCain’s desperate attempts to reinvent himself may be backfiring. American Research Group, a New Hampshire-based polling firm, recently found that McCain’s popularity among independents in the Granite State has “collapsed.” (thanks to T.B. for the tip)

“John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.”

McCain is struggling with Republicans who don’t trust him, independents who are disappointed in him, and Democrats who’ve grown disgusted with him. Other than these voters, however, McCain’s in great shape.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by dannubis
Ned is a repug ????

Well, technically he's a RINO, since he claims to be a Kennedy Democrat. And a DINO, actually, since he doesn't really match up with many of their beliefs these days. Heck, he's a ROTUINO as well, since he isn't really a Resident Of This Universe, prefering the Nediverse instead.

Another interesting note. Wasn't it Ned who pointed out how disloyal Democrats were, in that whenever someone failed to hew to party line or did something politicly untenable, the "long knives" would come out and the party would sacrifice those poor pols?

Strange, now that the Republicans are no longer in power, that that one would like a purge in party ranks, sacrificing disagreeable pols to have a finer, purer, party marching in lockstep.

[Q Classic]

The way I see it, and why I remain unconvinced by this surge, is that it seems to me that Iraq's a cracking and crumbling facade trying to hold back a massive wave of messy mideast disaster.

Bush is a little boy who didn't understand the complexities when he decided to "improve" the wall. Those 20,000 troops? Yeah, that's his thumb plugging up a hole.

Sure, it could work. If it does, stories will be told about it forever to other little boys.

But there are so many other cracks that if one of them goes, he's ****ed.

And so are 20,000 more Americans.

I mean, ****--if he'd done the job right the first time around, with the 400k+ troops Shinseki had wanted, if he'd actually listened to those with experience, things would probably not be so dire at this time. Even the most of the plans calling for a surge I've seen ask for more troops than 20,000--so I don't think even this one will be handled correctly, least of all by this administration, which has proven its incompetence over and over again...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
6. Why has the debate become about sending more troops or keeping levels where they are? Didn't people elect a Democratic Congress so we could end this stupid ass war?

I dispute that commonly held belief. Every reputable poll showed Iraq being a 3rd most important voting criteria. 1st being corruption of GOP incumbents, 2. being rampant irresponible spending 3. being the handling of Iraq.

Even saying it was a 3rd criteria item also does not indicate that all those people were necessarily in favor withdrawl but moreover a better approach to the Iraq situation other than same old same old. Amongst those would be a serious attempt to quell the violence. Personally I think 20000 far too small a number but given the so called mandate the Dems feel thats about all thats gonna be available in the current political situation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


10) Probably because Petraeus went on the record saying he thought the pacification of Baghdad -- not Iraq, just Baghdad -- would take 120,00 troops -- thus showing that even he understood the "surge," as proposed, was a joke. He was confirmed for being competent, honest, and knowing what he was talking about -- which is more than you can say for everyone else who's shilled for the war to date.

Ok this is about the umpteenpth time this figure has been thrown around. Firstly Petraeus never went on record claiming the need for 120000 men to pacify Baghdad. To the contrary this number derives from a counterinsurgency manual he authored claiming the need for 20 troops per 10000 citizens. Baghdad = 6 million therefor needed troops are 120000 by that simple calculus. Of course that manual simply figures amount of troops required not the nationality thereof.

OTOH, he understands a reliance to some small degree on already trained and ready Iraqi forces namely his immediate response to exactly that question as posed by John McCain.

Senators asked tough questions on troop strength needed to pacify the city, pointing out that by his own counterinsurgency calculus, Petraeus would need some 120,000 troops to secure Baghdad, a city with a population of some 6.5 million.

McCain raised this point in early questioning.

"It took an overwhelming number of military boots on the ground in
Kosovo and Bosnia in order to bring about the end of what was basically sectarian violence. And yet your numbers, by any estimate or the formula that you use, that you're receiving, are either inadequate or bare minimum. Does that concern you?"

Petraeus responded that it did, adding that his own counterinsurgency manual puts the preferred ratio of citizens to soldiers at 50 to 1. He added, however, that he was factoring in special operations forces, Iraqi military and police, and private security forces.

The question is still valid are enough being applied to make a difference. Don't know. But my guess is Petraeus is in a much better situation to gauge the needs then Senators.

All that being said I like Q^3 am reticent about the outcome. Not that much choice is given considering asking for an appropriate amount with cushion to ensure success is not even on the table.

[Dinner]

It comes down to this: The military was right, Bush was wrong. We really did need more troops to secure the country and try to enforce order but now no amount of troops will do that unless you resort to mass punishment and possibily ethnic cleansing using chemical weapons. No one will support that therefor it is not possible to quell Iraq militarially. We had a chance but Bush/Cheney blew it with their arrogance and ignorance.

If staying doesn't help then a phased withdrawl is the only logical solution. Pump up the Iraq side we want, watch the worsing civil war from a distance, and hope the side who kills most of the other side becomes tired enough of war to behaive reasonably after the years of civil war come to an end. We all know that is how this will play out in the end.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Personally I think 20000 far too small a number but given the so called mandate the Dems feel thats about all thats gonna be available in the current political situation.

I can agree with that. The Pentagon originally said it would take 500,000 to secure a country of Iraq's size. We have 140,000 right now and that is a 40,000 increase over what Bush had reduced numbers to during the run up to the 2004 Presidential campaign.

20,000 isn't ****. The Pentigon has been right all along that you can't hope to control the country on fewer then half a million so that should be the starting point for any "surge". We're not talking about an additional 360,000 troops though. We're not even talking 10% of that. Instead we're talking just 20k-21k. It's a piddling amount for a conflict Bush continually has claimed "is the defining fight of our time which we must win".

It's clear Bush doesn't believe his own words. If he really felt we must win then his "surge" would be in the hundreds of thousands and not a piss in the pot.

[Ramo]

People forget that there was a similar "surge" of ~15k troops into Baghdad over the Summer, with very little to show from it. 20k is a drop in the bucket. If we were serious, we'd need an order of magnitude more and that isn't simply feasible short of a draft.

it's true that there are more Iraqi troops nowadays, but they're still absurdly ineffective. The recent thread about their great success is an apt example. An Iraqi Army batallion, with an assist from a Badr Corps-dominated police dept, almost got cut down by an obscure cult, only to be rescued by us (as the NYT has reported). And then there's the lack of political will to go after the militias. Sadr's back in the gov't. We don't have any command over Iraqi troops. There's good reason to believe that we'll be presiding over the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Baghdad.

Granted, Petraeus seems more competent than Casey, but it seems unlikely that he could single-handedly change things around.