Romney Claims He ‘Never Supported A Timed Withdrawal,’ Forgets About His Secret Plan
Romney Claims He ‘Never Supported A Timed Withdrawal,’ Forgets About His Secret Plan
During tonight’s Republican presidential debate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney sharply attacked former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for criticizing President Bush’s foreign policy.
Huckabee responded by pointing out that Romney had previously “supported a timed withdrawal” from Iraq. Indignant — and once again unwilling to give up his role as Bush’s biggest booster — Romney retorted, “I do not support and have never supported a timed withdrawal, so that’s wrong, Governor.” Watch it:
Romney must have forgotten about his plan to devise a secret strategy to get out of Iraq. In an ABC News interview in April, Romney revealed that he would “plot out a series of timetables” with the Iraqi government:
ROBERTS: As president, would you set a deadline for bringing the troops home?
ROMNEY: Well, I wouldn’t publish it for my adversaries to see.
I would certainly sit down with al-Maliki as well as his government, plot out a series of milestones, timetables as well, measure how well they’re doing.
But that’s not something you’d publish for the enemy to understand, because, of course, they can just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly.
More recently, on Sept. 3, Romney said that “sometime in ‘08,” he publicly predicted that U.S. troops would be able to shift to “a support role,” where they would be “no longer in the front.”
Transcript:
ROMNEY: A number of things.
I disagree with the governor writing in Foreign Affairs magazine that the president’s administration suffers from an arrogant bunker mentality.
HUCKABEE: Did you read the article before you commented on it?
ROMNEY: I did read the article, the whole article. I read the entire article and I thought it was — well, I won’t make any further comments. It was not…
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: Before you commented on it?
ROMNEY: Before — I got a copy of the article and read the article. And in the headline of the article, it said, The Bush…
MCCAIN: Did you read mine?
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: No, no, hold on.
John, no, I didn’t. Sorry. But I read his.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: And number two…
(UNKNOWN): What about mine?
ROMNEY: Number two — number two, I did support the surge. It was Senator McCain, of all of us, who was out fighting for the surge. He right on that.
On the same day the president announced the surge, I also, having spoken that day with Fred Kagan, who’s one of the brilliant theorists in this regard, I laid out my plan that I thought made sense — actually even before the president’s speech — calling for additional troops. I called for a different number.
So I also supported the surge from the very beginning.
ROMNEY: But, look, you know, Governor, don’t try and characterize my position. Of course, this war…
HUCKABEE: Which one?
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: You know, we’re wise to talk about policies and not to make personal attacks.
HUCKABEE: Well, it’s not a personal attack, Mitt, because you also supported a timed withdrawal. And Senator Pryor from my state…
ROMNEY: No, that’s…
HUCKABEE: … was praising you for that, and…
ROMNEY: I do not support and have never supported a timed withdrawal, so that’s wrong, Governor.
You know, it’s really helpful if you talk about your policies and the things you believe, and let me talk about my policies.
And my policy is, I’ve never talked about a timed withdrawal with a date certain for us to leave. That’s not the case. Simply wrong.
I’ve also supported the troop surge, Governor, and I supported it on the same day the president brought it forward.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But that’s not something you’d publish for the enemy to understand, because, of course, they can just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone.
Can someone please explain to me why it would be a bad thing if “the enemy” were to just “lay in the weeds until the time you’re gone”? Wouldn’t that translate into fewer human beings (American soldiers, in particular, if that’s all you care about) would die in the meantime? And why do they make it sound like nobody (inclouding Iraqi soldiers) would be around to do anything? This idea that you can’t let the enemy know that you’re leaving is stupid. (And we did set a timetable for withdrawl from Vietnam, despite what Giuliani said tonight.)
January 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pmshouldn’t the withdrawl be based on the security situation in Iraq and not an abitrary timeline?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 5, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
You mean as arbitrary as the reasons to invade Iraq the first time around?
January 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pmRomney is doing poorly tonight.
It is not surprising that Ron Paul is attractive to some; by comparison he is the best the party has – and he’s not really a Republican.
The Democrats were just invited on stage to shake hands with the Republicans – my observation for what it’s worth: Romney is a cold fish.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pmWho won the ABC Republican Debate in New Hampshire?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1450
.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pmThe latest WMUR/CNN poll released just hours before the debate began has McCain leading Romney
According to the link you offered PollM the debate hasnt begun.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pmshouldn’t the withdrawl be based on the security situation in Iraq and not an abitrary timeline?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 5, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
Shouldn’t your question be related to the point of the thread: Romney’s hypocrisy or flip-flopping? I mean, instead of trying to change the subject in the very first comment?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pmIf it was wrong to use arbitrary reasons to go in, would it be right to use arbitrary criteria to base the withdrawl?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 5, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Why change the subject, Mantastic? Does Romney’s flip-flopping bother you, or not?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pmIf it was wrong to use arbitrary reasons to go in, would it be right to use arbitrary criteria to base the withdrawl?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 5, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Why do you assume the reasons for withdrawal would be arbitrary? Because that suits your argument best?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pmSorry, gum — you’re right. I shouldn’t aid and abet the Cap’n in his diversionary tactics.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pmArbitrary criteria? For Gawrsh Sakes, they declared Mission Accomplished several times and Iraq Sovereign.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pmAnd fer Gawds Sake Mitt, stop flip-flopping Gawd doesn like hypocrisy!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pmIs it just me or does Romney have a speech impediment [and a smirk]
January 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pmFor christ’s sake, is this debate on time delay for the f_cking west coast?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pmHe’s definitely got a smirk. Nice hair, too. How come the Republicans make fun of John Edwards’ hair and never a peep about Romney’s pomp?
Huckabee’s got a smirk, too, but it’s a snarky smirk.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:18 pmgummitch, are you seeing the debate on television?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pmYes, Zooey. They are now doing four of the the Democrats – Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Richardson. No Kucinich or Gravel. I cannot imagine how or why they would broadcast the debates on a tape-delayed basis. You could probably watch them on the internet before they’re broadcast there. (That’s just speculation.)
January 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pmThanks Wayne.
Anyone on the west coast seeing this?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:24 pmI cringe at the idea of turning FoxSnooze on but . . . uh, nope. No debate.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:26 pmRomney should stop using so much oily stuff in his hair..the gangsta look is out.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pmgummitch, it should be on ABC.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pmAccording to TiVo it’s on in about a half hour. Currently, ABC is broadcasting an infommercial.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pmDebates – ABC. NFL Playoffs – NBC.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pmGuess which one will get more viewers.
I have the game on one TV and the debate on ABC on another.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pmGOD DAMN IT. THEY’RE NOT SHOWING THE F_CKING DEBATES LIVE ON THE WEST COAST.
I’M PISSED OFF!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pmI mean, what kind of sense does that make?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pmI have the game on one TV and the debate on ABC on another.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
This Steelers game is starting to look a lot like politics – ugly.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pmComment by Zooey — January 5, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
EeeZee Teeveee
I knew an old drunk guy that would say that when the TV said or did something that he didnt agree with, not that your old or drunk..
Oh my,I should shut up. =)
January 5th, 2008 at 9:41 pmI wish I were drunk…
January 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pmThis Steelers game is starting to look a lot like politics – ugly.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
Oh my, they are poisoning the refs creme brulee?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pmI wish I were drunk…
Comment by Zooey
Passes Zoo a brew ===—- (”)__)
January 5th, 2008 at 9:43 pmThis Steelers game is starting to look a lot like politics – ugly.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Well, my wife has the Jags in her office pool, so it looks fine to us. But that’s a topic for another thread.
Mitt said that if we set a timetable, the enemy would wait for us to leave. Why is it a bad thing that the enemy would wait for us to leave? Does that mean fewer human eings will die? Would someone please explain to me what’s wrong with that. Thank you.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:43 pmThe enemy doesnt want us to leave the Iraqi people we freed do.
They can handle Al Qaeda, they did it before the USA toppled Saddam.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pmThe enemy can gain nothing by harming Iraqis after we leave, they will only harm their image to muslims worldwide.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pmPasses Zoo a brew ===—- (â€)__)
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Thanks, Zep.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pmMitt said that if we set a timetable, the enemy would wait for us to leave. Why is it a bad thing that the enemy would wait for us to leave? Does that mean fewer human eings will die? Would someone please explain to me what’s wrong with that. Thank you.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Okay – let’s go with McCain’s plan and leave in a million years. That’ll test the patience of those pesky Jihadis!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:50 pmYVW Zoo
January 5th, 2008 at 9:50 pmThis is called humor.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pmNo kidding, Keltoi.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pmThe enemy can gain nothing by harming Iraqis after we leave, they will only harm their image to muslims worldwide.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Ding! Ding! Ding!
That’s why Bushco will stay on the offensive till we drag their butts out of the White House. If they made any moves of conciliation, and things got better? We just might see those war crimes tribunals.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:54 pmComment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Hey, quit banging the bell already!! =0)
It seems only rational.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:05 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Okay – let’s go with McCain’s plan and leave in a million years. That’ll test the patience of those pesky Jihadis!
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
I see you avoided answering my question.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:05 pmThe enemy can gain nothing by harming Iraqis after we leave, they will only harm their image to muslims worldwide.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
I read a story in my local paper today about how the incidence of female suicide bombers has spiked in Iraq in the last few months. Remember the good old days when only Muslim men wanted to kill dozens of strangers so they could go have 77 virgins in heaven? How would you sell that as a good thing to a girl? I mean, lots of talking about kohl eye liner and silk kaftans, sure, but jeez…do they have Bazars in Heaven?
Seriously, I don’t think AQ is too worried about image right now, the only image they can’t take is the image of being defeated. They’ll use female suicde bombers to kill other Muslims of any age, gender or sect. They just can’t take a loss.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Wow, what a sexist pig.
Maybe they’re just so damn pissed off that the women decided to joint them.
Or was that still under the guise of humor?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pmI see you avoided answering my question.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Yeah, I am a bit of a Steelers Jihadi so I can’t get too serious for this particular three hour block. I have also never been one to just wish myself drunk, I take action, by God!
But to answer your question, I can’t think of a war in all of history where the outcome was in question where one side declared in advance when they would retreat. It is a new thing under the Sun in this modern world of ours that it would ever occur to any leader to suggest it.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pmOr was that still under the guise of humor?
Comment by Zooey — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Kinda – I thought you might take the question in a different somewhat naughty direction. It wasn’t serious. Life is absurd. ANYONE blowing themselves up to kill buckets of people they’ve never met is a laugh or cry situation.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pmI can’t think of a war in all of history where the outcome was in question where one side declared in advance when they would retreat.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
A few questions, Keltoi:
What is the question that the war is in?
Who is the enemy from whom we would be “retreating”?
What objectives have yet to be achieved militarily?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:17 pmANYONE blowing themselves up to kill buckets of people they’ve never met is a laugh or cry situation.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
I try to think about just how much it would take to get me to strap on a bomb and blow up myself and others.
Not really all that funny.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:20 pm>>What is the question that the war is in?
Whether our leaving immediately would result in a Waziristan-like situation somewhere in Iraq
>>Who is the enemy from whom we would be “retreating�
The situation I describe above is the enemy. The are multiple groups who could make it happen if we were gone.
>>What objectives have yet to be achieved militarily?
Stability over a sufficient period of time that at any minute you wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing went to total shit again. Also, a secular Iraqi security appartus – army and police – that is loyal to law and elected government instead of to sect or tribe.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 5, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pmSeriously, I don’t think AQ is too worried about image right now, the only image they can’t take is the image of being defeated. -Keltoi
They are fighting AQ, not the troops. So what I said stands. They are fighting for their country and will, US troops or not, banish them.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pmANYONE blowing themselves up to kill buckets of people they’ve never met is a laugh or cry situation.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
You know what makes me cry? People wanting to kill people by the millions, but who are too cowards to put their life in the line of fire.
And frankly, a pilot droping a daisy or incendiary bomb over civilian population doesn’t deserve much more respect from me, either.
The moral relativism of some people is very sad.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:26 pmI try to think about just how much it would take to get me to strap on a bomb and blow up myself and others.
Not really all that funny.
Comment by Zooey — January 5, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Hm, well, no, if you can imagine anything that would make you willing to do that, I’ll agree it isn’t funny at all.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pmThe moral relativism of some people is very sad.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Well said, Senor Evil. :)
January 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pmBut to answer your question, I can’t think of a war in all of history where the outcome was in question where one side declared in advance when they would retreat. It is a new thing under the Sun in this modern world of ours that it would ever occur to any leader to suggest it.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
I’ll see your war, and raise you an occupation.
When has an occupying force ever been stupid enough to arm militant groups in the occupied country?
When has an occupying force been stupid enough to resort to artillery/air strikes, on family dwellings, in order to kill suspected enemies?
When has an occupying force been stupid enough to declare that the occupied county must surrender control of their most precious resource as a condition to end the occupation?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pmYou know what makes me cry? People wanting to kill people by the millions, but who are too cowards to put their life in the line of fire.
And frankly, a pilot droping a daisy or incendiary bomb over civilian population doesn’t deserve much more respect from me, either.
The moral relativism of some people is very sad.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
You must try harder, Spaniard.
The US does not want to kill people by the millions – obviously. We have not dropped daisey cutters on civilian populations or the names Fallujah and Ramadi would join the Ninevah and Bablyon list.
If you think the US Military is the moral equivalent of AQ you are guilty of the most obscene moral relativism possible.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:33 pmBut to answer your question, I can’t think of a war in all of history where the outcome was in question where one side declared in advance when they would retreat. It is a new thing under the Sun in this modern world of ours that it would ever occur to any leader to suggest it.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Keltoi, your stupidity is really shining tonight. This is an illegal war, an invasion of a sovereign nation by a sociopath. retreating would be the first and only honorable act the USA has committed in Iraq. We are the enemy, we have created this horrific mess; our presence is the only thing keeping it going. We are mass-murderers, on the edge of genocide. We deserve to lose, and in fact have already lost. $100 a barrel oil is no win. Millions of innocents dead and displaced because of our actions in no win. Billions of tax dollars siphoned off by traitors is no win.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pmIf you think the US Military is the moral equivalent of AQ you are guilty of the most obscene moral relativism possible.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about you.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pmHi Zooey :)
Wish Santa’s has gifted you well. And, if you switch religions to Catholic this same night, you can also receive gifts from the Mage Kings. Think of it :D
A noctambule Evil Spaniard with a malevolent cold here *cough* *sneeze* :P
January 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pmIf you think the US Military is the moral equivalent of AQ you are guilty of the most obscene moral relativism possible.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
the US military has behaved far worse than Al Qaeda, an an illegal invading force. You are the obscene moral relativist.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pmA noctambule Evil Spaniard with a malevolent cold here *cough* *sneeze* :P
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
I think I’ll have to forego the gifts of the Magi. :)
I’m sorry you’re sick. :( Do you have internet at home now?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pmForget the blame, lets look for solutions.
The Iraqi people, by poll, want the US out.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pmThe three kings the magi speak of is a reference to the 3 stars of Orion, the big dipper.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:44 pmI could be wrong, but I think he was talking about you.
Comment by Zooey — January 5, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about both. My garage is not big enough to fit a C-130 in.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:45 pmLet’s try this again.
But to answer your question, I can’t think of a war in all of history where the outcome was in question where one side declared in advance when they would retreat. It is a new thing under the Sun in this modern world of ours that it would ever occur to any leader to suggest it.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
I’ll see your war, and raise you an occupation.
When has an occupying force ever been stupid enough to arm militant groups in the occupied country?
When has an occupying force been stupid enough to resort to artillery/air strikes, on family dwellings, in order to kill suspected enemies?
When has an occupying force been stupid enough to declare that the occupied county must surrender control of their most precious resource as a condition to end the occupation?
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pmMy garage is not big enough to fit a C-130 in.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
I guess you’re not a member of the “base.”
January 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Again, you’re not answering my question. Telling me it’s never been done before is both incorrect (we announced our Vietnam withdrawal timeline) and irrelevant. Lots of things have never been done before but that doesn’t mean it can’t work. Answer my question, please, or go weep that your Steelers are losing..
January 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pmStability over a sufficient period of time that at any minute you wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing went to total shit again. Also, a secular Iraqi security appartus – army and police – that is loyal to law and elected government instead of to sect or tribe.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
That is an objective that is not achievable militarily.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pmYou must try harder, Spaniard.
The US does not want to kill people by the millions – obviously. We have not dropped daisey cutters on civilian populations or the names Fallujah and Ramadi would join the Ninevah and Bablyon list.
Curiously, you don’t mention the incendiary ammunition that was used effectively in Fallujah.
And, maybe your country (or some of the GOPs of your contry, I must say in this case) don’t want to kill people by the millions. But they DO it.
Sorry, but the excuse of the naiveté and good will of this USA GOP is very feeble, in the present case of an aggression war against an empoverished third world country.
If you think the US Military is the moral equivalent of AQ you are guilty of the most obscene moral relativism possible.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
That’s rich. You sell your GOP moral high ground, but your same GOP ignored all the international treaties signed by your own country, the UN (an organization who is largely an USA fabrication, based on USA principles), to invade ILLEGALLY a country that has NOTHING ado with the AQ terrorists that killed 3000 persons the 9/11, and cause hundreds of thousands deaths, and millions of people displaced from their home.
Yet you consider your “moral” is better than the one of an Al Qaeda jihadi? Why exactly? Because you don’t hate personally the people that it’s killed in your name? Because you don’t consider yourself responsible for the people killed by the factions now fighting in Iraq? Awake, these factions weren’t sending suicide bombers into flea markets prior to the invasion of the USA.
Cause ——+ Effect
January 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pmYep, Keltoi. Senor Evil WAS talking about you. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
Well said, Evil Spaniard! Excellent points. :)
January 5th, 2008 at 10:55 pmAnd, yes, Zooey, after a long time, I have again internet at home :D
January 5th, 2008 at 10:55 pmAnd, yes, Zooey, after a long time, I have again internet at home :D
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Cool!! :-)
January 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pmKeltoi,
If announcing the date on which we are going to leave results inthe terrorists stopping their random killing and, as all of you put it, “waiting for us to leave”, then it sounds like fewer people will die. Why is this a bad thing?
Everyone agrees, your side and ours, that no matter when we leave, violence will pick up again as soon as we’re gone. So why postpone the inevitable? Why should more US soldiers die in the meantime? Can you justify that for me, please?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm>>When has an occupying force ever been stupid enough to arm militant groups in the occupied country?
Every military since Alexander has sought allies among former enemies.
>>When has an occupying force been stupid enough to resort to artillery/air strikes, on family dwellings, in order to kill suspected enemies?
We have not shelled indiscriminately – if you think that, you don’t understand artillery. As to airstrikes, yes, we have killed innocents. There were innocents mixed in with Zarqawi when we got him. Sometimes we get pure bad guys, sometimes we get a mix, sometimes we screw up and get only innocents.
When you drive a VIED into a marketplace, who are you aiming for?
There is no moral equivalency between AQ and the US
>>When has an occupying force been stupid enough to declare that the occupied county must surrender control of their most precious resource as a condition to end the occupation?
You’ll have to demonstrate the truth of this assertion before I refute it. Links would be nice.
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 10:58 pmAnd, yes, Zooey, after a long time, I have again internet at home :D
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Then we should be seeing you at The Zoo more, es verdad?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pmThx, Wayne, and Zooey :) *bowing*
January 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pmKeltoi, thanks for answering my questions, but the answers you gave don’t really sound like they apply to the kind of war you cited in your “war in question” post.
In fact, they sound like they apply to, as some have pointed out, an occupaion rather than a war.
And it seems to me like occupations historically end two ways — either the occupying power announces when they will leave and then does so, or they are defeated and forced out.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pmThen we should be seeing you at The Zoo more, es verdad?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
I’ll try, Wayne :)
January 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pmAnswer my question, please, or go weep that your Steelers are losing..
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
You were saying, Wayne…?
WOOOOO!!!!!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm>>When has an occupying force been stupid enough to declare that the occupied county must surrender control of their most precious resource as a condition to end the occupation?
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
You’ll have to demonstrate the truth of this assertion before I refute it. Links would be nice.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
How about an impartial source, The Asian Times:
January 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pmhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ31Ak01.html
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
In other words, you have no answers. dancing around, spinning like a top. Tool.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
That’s no excuse for refusing to answer my question.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pmAwake, these factions weren’t sending suicide bombers into flea markets prior to the invasion of the USA.
Cause ——+ Effect
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
True – Saddam was a very efficient killer and an even better terrorist.
Spaniard, I do apologize if my tone was terse.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pmI thought the debates were good tonight, especially the moment when the Dems and Reps were on the stage at the same time, embracing each other.
The big difference between Dems and Reps, is that Dems would leave Iraq, even though they admit the surge has reduce violence, whereas the the Reps would maintain the fight.
Other than that, given that high foreign energy imports, the bursting of the housing bubble, and the falling dollar are going to pound our economy for the next few years, no candidate and no president is going to be able to address their respective wish lists. Because the US hasn’t built nuclear nor renewable energy sources, and because the US raised mortgage loan terms from 20 to 30 years, the US will have to focus on reversing those policies, and the reversals will take years to repair the economy.
Just as Bush’s hopes for the US were shattered on 9/11/2001, the next president will spend all his/her time trying to reinvest in wealth creating infrastructure and policies to fix our current situation.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:10 pmYes, and the Romans didn’t announce the date of their retreat to the Britons, but it happened anyway.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:11 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
That’s no excuse for refusing to answer my question.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
5:20 to go in a one point game. Cut me some slack, Jack.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:11 pmIf we were at war with the real al qaeda, we’d have bombed the shit out of the Pakistan/Afghan border by now. Oh, whoops, that’s our buddy Mushy’s turf. Never mind.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pmTrue – Saddam was a very efficient killer and an even better terrorist.
Spaniard, I do apologize if my tone was terse.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Yet this USA GOP has demonstrated his even greater efficiency attaining a far greater number of Iraqis killed in 4 years than Saddam in 20. Must be the “full capitalism” mantra.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm>>Again, you’re not answering my question. Telling me it’s never been done before is both incorrect (we announced our Vietnam withdrawal
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Yeah! That worked out great!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pmTrue – Saddam was a very efficient killer and an even better terrorist. -Keltoi
Saddam, while a dictator, of secular sorts, HAD to keep an iron fist over the tribal warfare, as we see today. That said, and I agree with Scowcroft(R) that Saddam was a problem, but not a problem of global terrorism. Osama was not an Iraqi.
What if Keltoi, America was a country of tribal warfare, would you call our president a terrorist?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pmwe announced our Vietnam withdrawal
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Yeah! That worked out great!
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Um… how many US soldiers were lost after the withdrawal from Vietnam?
How far did communism spread in SE Asia after our withdrawal?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:15 pmIf we were at war with the real al qaeda, we’d have bombed the shit out of the Pakistan/Afghan border by now. Oh, whoops, that’s our buddy Mushy’s turf. Never mind.
Comment by RUCerious — January 5, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Curiously enough, the democratic contender of the long time military dictator Musharraf, Mrs. Buttho, has been killed by a suicide bomber (can we say terrorist?) under the nose of the USA forces deployed at Pakistan.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pmThat’s no excuse for refusing to answer my question.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
5:20 to go in a one point game. Cut me some slack, Jack.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
I think we can agree that Keltoi has a good excuse. I’m willing to cut him some slack.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:17 pmYet this USA GOP has demonstrated his even greater efficiency attaining a far greater number of Iraqis killed in 4 years than Saddam in 20. Must be the “full capitalism†mantra.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 5, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Dunno if you were around for the math of the million dead Iraqi debate – that is 600 dead Iraqis every single day since March 20, 2003 to Oct 1, 2007. Every Day. Not real plausible.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:26 pmHey Wayne,
I’d like to weigh in with your discussion with Keltoi. You write: “Everyone agrees, your side and ours, that no matter when we leave, violence will pick up again as soon as we’re gone. ”
I have to disagree with this assertion. It is certainly not the position of anyone who supports the continued mission in Iraq (that I know of, in any case) that the an increase in violence is inevitable no matter when we withdraw. The point of the continued mission and the surge is reduce the ability of Al Qaeda and Iraq and other terrorist groups to wage the kind of violence that they have perpetrated over the past four and a half years and to give the Iraqi government time to work out a political reconciliation agreement among the various factors in Iraq. If the mission and the surge succeeds (and it most certainly appears to be working now) then there will be no increase in violence when we leave and Iraq can move forward as a relatively peaceful, democratic nation.
Plus, Wayne, I have to agree with Keltoi that you citing the disastrous Vietnam experience as an example of how we should proceed in Iraq is puzzling.
Say hello to Jane for me.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pmI think we can agree that Keltoi has a good excuse. I’m willing to cut him some slack.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 5, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
I won’t. He seems to have time to give thoughtfully snarky answers to everything else. I’m watching the game, too. I can multi-task.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm#95 Keltoi, You are exactlly right about that. Interestingly, also this week National Journal published the results of its investigation of the infamous Lancet casualty study. The investigation should that the Lancet study was deeply flawed and biased and its conclusions unsupported.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pmI’m watching the game, too. I can multi-task.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
And providing commentary on our non-live west coast blogging of the “debates” at the Zoo. Thank you very much, Wayne. :-)
January 5th, 2008 at 11:34 pmWell, Keltoi, yer steelers are toast…
January 5th, 2008 at 11:34 pmExley,
I cited the example of Vietnam merely to refute his assertion that it never happened before. I never said the results were ideal, simply that it was not true that it never happened before.
Second, my m,ain question to himi, which he has not responded to in spite of everything else he has said, was why if, as everyone says, announcing a timeline would mean the enemy (whoever they are) would “just wait until we leave”, then wouldn’t that mean that fewer American soldiers and innocent Iraqis would die in the meantime? That, and only that, is the answer I care about.
Jaguars take the lead. 37 seconds to go.
I’ll tell Jane you said Hi.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm“I’m watching the game, too. I can multi-task.”
I am watching the game too, Wayne. But to be fair to Keltoi, he is a Steelers fan while you and I are casual observers of the game.
Would we be multi-tasking if it were the Jets playing right now or if we were watching a Mets playoff game? I don’t think so!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pmI think we can agree that Keltoi has a good excuse. I’m willing to cut him some slack.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 5, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Thanks.
Final: Jax 31, Pitt 29.
Tough, tough loss, congratulations to anyone in Florida. We’ll get em next year, Steelernation.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:40 pmKeltoi, I’d cut you slack if you were watching anything of value. Football? Pah.
It’s almost as useless as basketball.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:44 pmWhile conquerors do conscript former enemies, they generally maintain direct control of those forces and rarely, if ever, arm rival groups. And I can’t think of a single other example where arms have been distributed without strict control. Did you hear about the “missing” 190,00 rifles?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html
To the innocent victims there is no difference between AQ and U.S. It doesn’t matter, much, what we think. And, I haven’t seen any evidence of a large AQ force in Iraq. While some foreign fighters have been linked to AQ (mostly Saudis) the overwhelming majority of those opposed to us are Iraqis with, strictly, local loyalties.
Have you heard of the “Oil revenue sharing bill”? It’s been awfully hard to miss, but, here’s a link.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/13/opinion/edjuhasz.php
January 5th, 2008 at 11:46 pmKeltoi, I’d cut you slack if you were watching anything of value. Football? Pah.
It’s almost as useless as basketball.
Comment by gummitch — January 5, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Or yet another mockery of a debate?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:49 pmImpolitics is on fire tonight!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pmImpolitics is on fire tonight!
Comment by Zooey — January 5, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
I blush.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pmHave you heard of the “Oil revenue sharing bill� It’s been awfully hard to miss, but, here’s a link.
http://www.iht.com/ articles/ 2007/ 03/ 13/ opinion/ edjuhasz.php
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
An Op-Ed piece from the SF Herald Tribune??? Are you serious?
Can I start providing links to far right Op-Eds and not get laughed off this site?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pmCan I start providing links to far right Op-Eds and not get laughed off this site?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
WAIT! Dumb question. Of course I can’t.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:58 pmCan I start providing links to far right Op-Eds and not get laughed off this site?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
what’s your problem with a centrist newspaper? or is it your problem with the truth? either way, you’re pretty weak.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:59 pmHave you heard of the “Oil revenue sharing bill�
Comment by Impolitics — January 5, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
i believe it’s more accurately known
as the “Oil revenue STEALING” bill…
my 2cents… that’s all…
January 6th, 2008 at 12:02 amg’nite…
NY Times, 2/26/07
BAGHDAD, Feb. 26 — The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law today that would set guidelines for countrywide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry.
NYT
BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 — A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.
Anything more recent here??
January 6th, 2008 at 12:03 amDunno if you were around for the math of the million dead Iraqi debate – that is 600 dead Iraqis every single day since March 20, 2003 to Oct 1, 2007. Every Day. Not real plausible.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
Reminds me of that movie about the Nuremberg trials with Spencer Tracy. A nazi mandatary imprisoned asks something like “How can be that we’re accused of killing 6 milion jews in the concentration camps, it’s impossible”. Then other nazi imprisoned, answers “No, it’s not at all. Simply do this and this, keep working all day and night, and the numbers are there”.
People like you (and that idiot yes man of yours of this thread, Exley) fail to grasp diverse things: people killed wasn’t counted for several months after the invasion (and I doubt everyone is counted today). You don’t count the increased rate of deaths during the invasion, when your country was shocking and awing with missiles to soften targets, such as Baghdad. You don’t count people who has died because their hospitals have been bombed away. You don’t count the ones dying of hunger and illness.
You simply don’t count the ones that don’t appear in the news, and you do not read often the “bad news” about Iraq, because you prefer reading about schools being painted.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:07 amWhat about the link to the Asian Times article? That mentions the US plan to privatize the Iraqi Oil Fields. Plus, it was one of PNAC’s aims, and we all know how much they ahd to do with the invasion. Well, those of us willing to recognize the truth know.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:07 amWAIT! Dumb question. Of course I can’t.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
It’s information only. If we need facts, we can ask Impolitics for them, or find them ourselves. But we already know about the despicable oil revenue sharing bill, so I’m not too concerned.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:08 amYou’re right, Evil Spaniard. And the reason violence is down in Iraq has more to do with the fact that the ethnic cleansing has been , by and large, successful. It had more to do with that than with the surge.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:09 amWell, off to bed.
I must shock and awe this d4mned cold with enough sleep…
January 6th, 2008 at 12:09 amWayne, that and the self policing of the newly re-armed Sunni Awakening councils (militias armed with US funding and weapons)
January 6th, 2008 at 12:10 amGoodnight, Senor Evil. Feel better!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:12 amYou simply don’t count the ones that don’t appear in the news, and you do not read often the “bad news†about Iraq, because you prefer reading about schools being painted.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 6, 2008 @ 12:07 am
**standing ovation**
January 6th, 2008 at 12:14 amAn Op-Ed piece from the SF Herald Tribune??? Are you serious?
Can I start providing links to far right Op-Eds and not get laughed off this site?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Feel free to provide a link to anything which says WE aren’t trying to tell THEM what to do with THEIR oil. This one doesn’t. Though it’s 22 boring pages, it spells out the plan. Short version? We, (O.K. foreign oil companies), have the ultimate control of a sizable portion of THEIR oil.
http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/iraq_oil_legisl.pdf
January 6th, 2008 at 12:17 amComment by Exley — January 5, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Hi, Exley! Of course we would have been paying more attention to the game had it been one of our teams involved, but if I weren’t in the office football pool we probably wouldn’t have had the game on at all.
Back on topic: One question that I would have like asked of all of the candidates, as part of the issue of Iraq, is: “How do you plan to deal with Blackwater?” This is going to have to be addressed sooner or later.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:18 amComment by Impolitics — January 6, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Or is the “Gov”, as opposed to the White House, too liberal to be considered a valid source? How about every freakin mention, including BillO, Rush et al, of the “Necessity of enacting Revenue Sharing”. C’mon Keltoi. You don’t usually sound so disingenuous.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:22 amGood point, Jane. No mention of Blackwater in either debate. Probably because it would have led to a discussion of “accountability”, and they don’t want to open that can of worms.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:23 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Bumper Sticker:
We don’t demand perfection
January 6th, 2008 at 12:27 amWe demand accountability
Some highlites from the Republican debate:
[on the Bush Doctrine]
Thompson: “We won in Afghanistan.”
Rudy: “Warrantless searches, wiretapping (etc) – All good things.”
Romney: “We should use military force to move Islam into modernity.”
[on healthcare]
Thompson: “We’ll probably never going to have full coverage.”
Romney (to Paul): “Don’t turn the pharmaceutical companies into the bad guys. … They’ve done a magnificent job.”
All quotes may not be exact as they are based on my quickly scratched notes.)
January 6th, 2008 at 12:28 amHi Jane!
How did today’s results affect your standing in your office pool?
I have to say that tonight’s debate was probably the best one I have seen this campaign season. ABC and Gibson did a nice job. I thought Obama won, but Hillary did all right. Edwards was awful, as usual.
Once quick correction, Mugsy. When Romeny was speaking about the pharmaceutical companies, he was addressing not Ron Pauk, but John McCain, who had just launched into a ridiculous attack on the drug companies.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:33 amIMHO, anyone who thinks healthcare should be a “for-profit” industry is depraved. I’m not saying it should be free. Just that it shouldn’t be for profit.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:38 amComment by Mugsy — January 6, 2008 @ 12:28 am
When Mitt made that asinine remark about the pharmaceutical companies, adding that the pharmas spend more money in fighting lawsuits than on research and development, I wish that someone had asked whether they spend more money on advertising than on fighting lawsuits.
Anybody count how many times “free market” was mentioned during the Republican debate? They think that that’s the solution to everything–idiots!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:39 amC’mon Keltoi. You don’t usually sound so disingenuous.
Comment by Impolitics — January 6, 2008 @ 12:22 am
I am not at my best. Oil is a factor, I am not saying otherwise. Your statement 80 posts ago was a bit over-stated in my opinion.
Anyway, gotta go. Thanks for the chat, it seemed to be bringing the Steelers luck that I kept posting. Course, my sons cat is a Steeler coloured calico and she seemed lucky for awhile too. Crap.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:40 ama ridiculous attack on the drug companies.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 12:33 am
My heart medication has tripled in price, taking my “co-pay” along with it, over the last three years. In my eyes, attacks on pharmaceutical companies are, by definition, not “ridiculous”.
Though I can believe McCain making it seem so. I don’t think his synapses fire as they did 10 years ago. It’s sad.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:40 amYou simply don’t count the ones that don’t appear in the news, and you do not read often the “bad news†about Iraq, because you prefer reading about schools being painted.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
KABOOM!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:43 amGood night, Keltoi. I guess you’ll answer my question some other day. If you can.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:49 amEx: I’m 1 and 1. I have the underdogs in both of tomorrow’s games.
Back to the ‘healthcare’ portion of the Republican debate: in all of the discussion of their various healthcare ‘plans’, which mostly involved, once again, the free market supposedly solving the problem, no one mentioned the fact that, even if people had the time and money to shop around for purportedly affordable health care, most insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, that’s a deal-breaker for too many Americans.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:50 amGood night, Keltoi. I guess you’ll answer my question some other day. If you can.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 12:49 am
Don’t hold your breath…
January 6th, 2008 at 12:51 amUnfortunately, that’s a deal-breaker for too many Americans.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 12:50 am
My youngest son being one of them. He needs shoulder surgery, since he can just think about dislocating his shoulder and it pops out, but it’s a pre-existing condition. How will he ever get it repaired?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:54 amComment by Zooey — January 6, 2008 @ 12:54 am
And the Republicans believe that we have the best health care system in the world because your son has the opportunity to go to as many different doctors as he can to try to find the most inexpensive place to have that surgery. Never mind that he could never afford the travel and office visit charges to get those second, third, fourth,…., opinions. Republicans believe that our system is the best because it makes people a lot of money. Not because it delivers the best care (it doesn’t), but because it makes people a lot of money. Depraved lunatics.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:59 amDepraved lunatics.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 12:59 am
I agree completely. :-)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:00 amUnfortunately, that’s a deal-breaker for too many Americans.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 12:50 am
Heh! I retired last year after three neck surgeries and 10 years with a bum ticker.
I am VERY concerned. (terrified?)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:01 amI am VERY concerned. (terrified?)
Comment by Impolitics — January 6, 2008 @ 1:01 am
Have you seen Sicko? I think we should all be terrified.
I have student health. It’s just a bare minimum, but I feel fortunate to have it. Otherwise, I’d have nothing.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:04 amI’m glad Exley thinks Edwards did awful. That means he’s more scared of him than ever before.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:04 amThat’s true, RUC. Exley is quite transparent.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:07 amRUCerious,
As I said yesterday, I was most nervous about Edwards as the Democrats nominee. I thought he would be their strongest candidate. But, again, as I said yesterday, his loss in Iowa was a near-fatal blow to his candidacy. This is now a Obama-Clinton race.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:09 amI thought that Edwards did very well tonight, RUCerious. I haven’t read all of the comments, did Exley mention who he thought was best in the Republican debate? Not that there’s much to chose from on that side.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:11 amLoss? Edward came in second, last I heard.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:11 amI guess Exley is one of those fluffers who think McCain “won.”
January 6th, 2008 at 1:12 amMaybe we should wait till Tuesday night to see how Obama, Edwards and Clinton do in round 2?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:15 amI have to disagree with you on the Obama-Clinton race, Exley. I wouldn’t count Edwards out at all, there’s still plenty of states to go.
Who do you like amongst all of the candidates?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:15 am#145 Hey Jane….I didn’t really watch too much of the GOP debate so I can’t really make a call as to who “won.” Based on what little I saw, I’d say Thompson came off well. McCain was okay, not great.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:16 amI don’t understand the logic either. Edwards beats Clinton in Iowa, and somehow he’s lost the whole thing with South Caorlina still to come. Secondly, the entire process is radically different than it was last election, so how can any of the pundits accurately predict what will happen in future races? They can’t, plain and simple.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:16 amExley, what did you think of Mitt’s new, ruffled up hairdo..!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:17 amBased on what little I saw, I’d say Thompson came off well. McCain was okay, not great.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Then you must have missed them waking Thompson up to answer their questions. :)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:19 amBased on what little I saw, I’d say Thompson came off well. McCain was okay, not great.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:16 am
When Thompson was awake, he was making no sense.
The soft bigotry of low expectations…
January 6th, 2008 at 1:20 amSouth Carolina polls show Obama and Clinton tied at 33%, with Edwards running about 17%, others show Clinton slightly ahead…
January 6th, 2008 at 1:22 am#149,
Jane,
I think Edwards had to win Iowa to be a credible candidate. He is likely going to finish third in NH and then where does he win? Maybe he has a chance in South Carolina, but I think Obama will likely win there. And even if Edwards does win SC, a lot of people will dismiss it as a “favorite son” victory for a person from a neighboring state. If Edwards somehow manages to come in second in NH he may still have a shot. But I think that unlikely.
As for who I like….Oy. I have to admit I have never been this ambivalent about a group of candidates. They each have their virtues but the also each have major drawbacks. I think Giuliani was the best mayor in New York City’s history, but that doesn’t mean he is the right man to be president. McCain is obviously an American hero and a patriot and I agree with him on the war against terrorists. But I disagree with him on a lot of issues, including his freedom of speech-supressing “McCain-Feingold” act. Thompson is good on the issues but so far his campaign has not caught fire.
I really don’t know which of them I will support.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:24 amCertainly Thompson looked more alert than in previous debates, but I don’t think that he’s up to speed and I can’t imagine that he ever will be. And his recent “trophy wife” comment should have made women all over the country dismiss him immediately. Yuck!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:25 amI really don’t know which of them I will support.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:24 am
Such a fine pallet of candidates. :-D
January 6th, 2008 at 1:25 amComment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:24 am
Perhaps you should consider supporting a third party candidate who matches your views and try to convince your friends and neighbors to vote for him or her.
Your choice should be for who best represents you and your views, not who you think can win. That is the wrong approach to democracy. It might be the right path to attaining power fvor one’s own purposes, but it is the wrong approach to democracy.
(And I don’t care if that’s the way they’ve been doing it, it’s still wrong.)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:28 amRUCerious,
More than Romney’s hairdo was ruffled tonight, He was being attacked by everybody on that stage tonight. The other candidates know that if he loses New Hampshire, his candidacy is dead so they are ganged up on his to deliver the killing blow…just like Obama and Edwards joined together tonight to attack Clinton.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:28 amSuch a fine pallet of cordwood. :-D
Comment by Zooey — January 6, 2008 @ 1:25 am
fixed that for ya Z!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:30 amfixed that for ya Z!
Comment by RUCerious — January 6, 2008 @ 1:30 am
Thanks, RUC. I knew it didn’t look right. ;)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:31 amWayne, I have voted for third-party candidates in local and statewide elections in New York, but never in a presidential.
To do so in a presidential election is (to use a cliche) throwing away your vote.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:32 amComment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:24 am
Considering the somewhat surprising outcome in Iowa, I think that it’s impossible to predict what will happen the rest of the way. However, I still have to believe that Obama and Edwards will be the main contenders in the Democratic race. Most of the country wants real change, and I think that Senator Clinton doesn’t really fit the bill: in part, because of her corporate affiliations, but also because of some questionable votes that she has made. I’m ambivalent myself about Obama and Edwards, I suppose that I’d be happy with either, but Kucinich is the candidate that I’d support wholeheartedly, being the good liberal that I am. :)
Good luck with your choices–I notice that you didn’t mention Ron Paul, but at least I’m glad you don’t seem to favor Romney!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:38 amTo do so in a presidential election is (to use a cliche) throwing away your vote.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Wrong, Exley. To limit yourself to only one of two parties in your choices is to throw away your vote. You have alloowed yourself to be duped into believing that you must vote for one of those two choices, or your vote is wasted. You could help a third party in future elections by voting for their candidate in the federal election. If they get enough votes nationp-wide, their party can automatically field candidates over the next four years. If one of the candidates is going to win by an overwhelming margin, then voting for that candidate would be wasting your vote. I knew Gore would win New York in 2000, so I voted for Nader to try to get the Green Party more votes nation-wide. (Didn’t help enough.) But if I voted for Gore, then I would have been wasting my vote (and not because the Republicans stole the election, which they undeniably did.)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:39 amJane, re: Kyl Lieberman….!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:39 amTo do so in a presidential election is (to use a cliche) throwing away your vote.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Oh, no, you’re going to get Wayne started now! :)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:40 amRemember, Exley, it’s YOUR vote to cast, not their vote to take. You vote for who YOU want, not who they tell you to vote for. To do otherwise is to waste your vote.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:42 amNite all, time to go watch a movie with Mrs RUC!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:43 amJane, re: Kyl Lieberman….!
Comment by RUCerious — January 6, 2008 @ 1:39 am
Exactly! That was wrong on so many levels. Speaking of Lieberman, now there’s rumors that if McCain gets the nomination, Lieberman might be his running mate. Jebus, what an effing turncoat bastard!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:44 amI think McCain will pronounce Liebernamm his VP even before the Repuke convention…
January 6th, 2008 at 1:47 amTo do so in a presidential election is (to use a cliche) throwing away your vote.
Comment by Exley — January 6, 2008 @ 1:32 am
As opposed to voting Republican after “THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER”?
ROTFL!
On that note? I’m off to bed. Good night!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:48 am“Oh, no, you’re going to get Wayne started now! :)”
Yeah, I guess I am (By the way, Jane, Romney has his virtues — He is obviously smart and great businessman, but his changes of position over the years on several issues makes me question his conservative bona fides….I did feel sorry for him, however, by these ridiculous and offensive attacks on his religion).
Wayne, I understand what you are saying. And like I said I have voted for third-party candidates in New York elections to “send a message” or keep the third-party viable in future elections (I am a big fan of New York’s cross-endorsement policy). And there may come a day in the future when there will be a third-party candidate at the presidential level that I could and would support. But so far, there has not been one in my adult life (Ross Perot? Pat Buchanan? Ralph Nader? Please!)
January 6th, 2008 at 1:49 amGoodnight, Impolitics!
January 6th, 2008 at 1:52 amExley,
But you can still help the party of the candidate, even if that candidate has no chance of winning. Until more people start doing that, we will be forever stuck with just Democrats and Republicans to choose from, and nobody really wants that.
And seriously, Exley, being able to run a business has nothing to do with being able to govern. The two have mutually exclusive goals. In business, you’re trying to maximize profits (even if people have to die to do that), and in government, you are trying to serve the people and do things that need to be done whether it’s profitable or not.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:55 amGood night, Impolitics.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:55 amBut Wayne, the Mitt-ster is so dreamy…
January 6th, 2008 at 1:57 amBut Wayne, the Mitt-ster is so dreamy…
Comment by Zooey — January 6, 2008 @ 1:57 am
Ah, yes, shoulders that you could land a 747 on, rriiiight. Actually, I’d LIKE to see a 747 land on him!
January 6th, 2008 at 2:02 amJane, it would slide off and come to a stop smelling like aftershave. ;)
January 6th, 2008 at 2:04 amBut Wayne, the Mitt-ster is so dreamy…
Comment by Zooey — January 6, 2008 @ 1:57 am
And some say he looks “presidential”, as if that should ever be a reason to vote for anyone.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:05 amBut Zooey, does he smell as good as Fred Thompson?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:05 am“But you can still help the party of the candidate, even if that candidate has no chance of winning.”
Yes, but as with the individual candidates there has not been a national third-party in which I have been interested in supporting.
I understand what you are saying though. In New York elections, when I have been unsatisfied with the GOP candidates, I have voted for the Conservative Party candidates to 1) send a message to the NY Republican Party that they need to field better candidates and/or 2) Make sure the Conservative Party received enough votes to allow it to remain on future New York ballots. Lack of a sufficient votes wound up killing the New York Liberal Party in the 1990s.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:06 amBut Zooey, does he smell as good as Fred Thompson?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 6, 2008 @ 2:05 am
Or Bill Sali?
I hope I never find out… :-D
January 6th, 2008 at 2:11 amThen, on the state level, you are exercising your right to vote correctly. You should do the same on the national level. Write in a candidate if you have to.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:13 amDuly noted, Wayne….
Time for bed. Good night, Wayne.
Good luck in the football pool tomorrow, Jane.
Night, all.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:18 amGoodnight, Exley, and thanks!
January 6th, 2008 at 2:19 amPerhaps,Exley, you would consider a third party vote even if you don’t agree with the party for the same of the health of the entire process. You know, give one up for the team.
Unless my Congressman, John Hall, does two things, he won’t be getting my vote this November. First, he has to be more vocal and active about the need to impeach the Vice President (then President) for their numerous constitutional violations, and, second, he must secure the nomination of a party other than the Democrats. I will not vote for him on the Democratic Party line.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:19 amGood night, Exley. Pitchers and Catchers report in about, what, six weeks? :)
January 6th, 2008 at 2:20 amWayne, that is the dirtiest thing I’ve ever read by you — so far. ;)
January 6th, 2008 at 2:28 amMust have been in your own mind, Z, must have been in your own mind. :D
January 6th, 2008 at 2:38 amWow, so he said this before he said that, BFD.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:46 amThis clowns opinions mean about as much to me as the cost of tofu.
Wake me when it’s over . . . .
z z z z z z z z
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 5, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Then how do you square Bush’s (pre-presidency) and Repub members of Congress’ declaring that the president formulate an exit plan (a.k.a. withdrawal) when committing troops to military action overseas?
January 6th, 2008 at 8:30 amAnd apologies if this has been addressed earlier; I did not read the entire thread.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:30 amMitt Romney Flip Flops Again
Does Mitt Romney in your Opinion have a Credibility Issue?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1460
.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am