Comments on: McCain refuses to say whether he would support Iraq security agreement. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:39:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Since2oo6 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5581845 Since2oo6 Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:30:29 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5581845 <a href="http://www.bedavapornoizle.us" rel="nofollow">Bedava Porno izle</a> <a href="http://www.liselibakire.com" rel="nofollow">LiseLi Bakire,LiseLi Sex</a> Bedava Porno izle

LiseLi Bakire,LiseLi Sex

]]> By: hauksdottir http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301772 hauksdottir Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:04:09 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301772 Why doesn't somebody give him a computer game based upon the vietnam war? He can continue playing and replaying the scenarios until he someday far in the future finds a route to "victory". Unlike the tic-tac-toe game in Star Wars, there must be a path to victory. With honor. Somebody on his staff will probably have to load it for him and walk him through how to click a mouse. How many thousands more have to bloodily die or be dismembered because he is still fighting phantasms and nightmares and guilt? If we sent him lead figures, he'd probably eat them in anger, despite being comfortable with the low-tech physicality. On the computer, he can kill them again and again and again. With fancy zooming camera controls, he could even see the faces of the people he is bombing to smithereens. And in the real world, families can start to rebuild their neighborhoods. Why doesn’t somebody give him a computer game based upon the vietnam war?

He can continue playing and replaying the scenarios until he someday far in the future finds a route to “victory”. Unlike the tic-tac-toe game in Star Wars, there must be a path to victory. With honor. Somebody on his staff will probably have to load it for him and walk him through how to click a mouse.

How many thousands more have to bloodily die or be dismembered because he is still fighting phantasms and nightmares and guilt?

If we sent him lead figures, he’d probably eat them in anger, despite being comfortable with the low-tech physicality. On the computer, he can kill them again and again and again. With fancy zooming camera controls, he could even see the faces of the people he is bombing to smithereens.

And in the real world, families can start to rebuild their neighborhoods.

]]> By: SPQR http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301280 SPQR Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:12:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301280 I'm so sick of the right lacing every friggin' sentence they say with some right-wing buzzword. It's like sending a shout-out to your base whenever you open your mouth. I’m so sick of the right lacing every friggin’ sentence they say with some right-wing buzzword. It’s like sending a shout-out to your base whenever you open your mouth.

]]> By: ElBruce http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301252 ElBruce Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:55 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301252 <em># 19 impeachcheneythenbush Says:</em> Check the date again - it's in the future. I made that scenario up based on the news item at the top of this page. # 19 impeachcheneythenbush Says:

Check the date again – it’s in the future. I made that scenario up based on the news item at the top of this page.

]]> By: wearechange http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301240 wearechange Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:57:03 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301240 off topic, but <a href="http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/coke-or-pepsi/" rel="nofollow">poignant</a> nonetheless off topic, but poignant nonetheless

]]> By: impeachcheneythenbush http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301230 impeachcheneythenbush Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:55:10 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301230 <em># 16 - ElBruce Says: </em> Please provide the link to this info. Not that I would not believe it, but I am a fact-based person. # 16 – ElBruce Says:

Please provide the link to this info. Not that I would not believe it, but I am a fact-based person.

]]> By: impeachcheneythenbush http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301222 impeachcheneythenbush Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:50:03 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301222 I think there's still an awful lot of "slippage" between the terms "SOFA" and "Long-term security agreement." The Bush administration has been trying to create a LTSA, but in such a way that it would appear to rise to the level of a treaty. A SOFA does not need Senate approval; a LTSA definitely does. See this earlier article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html By the way, Russia indicated today that they would probably support an extension of the U.N. mandate IF the Iraqi government requested it. Not that they would possibly be a laughing up their sleeve on the additional (borrowed) dollars the U.S. might continue spending on that occupation. Considering their 10-year debacle in Afghanistan that brought their economy to its knees, I rather doubt they'd have any concern about ours. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html?hp I think there’s still an awful lot of “slippage” between the terms “SOFA” and “Long-term security agreement.” The Bush administration has been trying to create a LTSA, but in such a way that it would appear to rise to the level of a treaty. A SOFA does not need Senate approval; a LTSA definitely does. See this earlier article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html

By the way, Russia indicated today that they would probably support an extension of the U.N. mandate IF the Iraqi government requested it. Not that they would possibly be a laughing up their sleeve on the additional (borrowed) dollars the U.S. might continue spending on that occupation. Considering their 10-year debacle in Afghanistan that brought their economy to its knees, I rather doubt they’d have any concern about ours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html?hp

]]> By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301202 Bilbo Hussein Baggins Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:41:38 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301202 And of course Blitzer, neocon toe sucker, allowed him to get away with evading the question. Why does Blitzer even ask him questions if he isn't going to demand an answer? When will the neoCONS (including McCain) finally get it that THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN AN OCCUPATION? And of course Blitzer, neocon toe sucker, allowed him to get away with evading the question. Why does Blitzer even ask him questions if he isn’t going to demand an answer?

When will the neoCONS (including McCain) finally get it that THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN AN OCCUPATION?

]]> By: ElBruce http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301186 ElBruce Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:38:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301186 WASHINGTON (March 13th, 2009) - President McCain today gave a final warning to Iraq's democratic government that any further attempts to remove U.S. military personnel from Iraqi soil would be met with armed resistance. "My friends, it looks like regime change is a possibility here. If they keep trying to kick us out, we may have to kick them out instead. Like I said on the campaign trail, I'm keeping us in this war until we achieve victory. And if I have to change who we're fighting in order to have someone to have victory over, then that's what a maverick would do." Vice President Palin echoed the President's statements. "Sure, we'd like 'em to be the good guys and help us and all, but if they want to be the bad guys, well then, as we say in Alaska, you don't want to be the moose in this equation." Reportedly, McCain's national security team is currently working on the problem of how to invade a country that you're already occupying. "This would be so much easier if we could just do a head fake and shift everybody across the border into Iran," said Secretary of Defense Rick Davis. "They'd never see that one coming." WASHINGTON (March 13th, 2009) – President McCain today gave a final warning to Iraq’s democratic government that any further attempts to remove U.S. military personnel from Iraqi soil would be met with armed resistance. “My friends, it looks like regime change is a possibility here. If they keep trying to kick us out, we may have to kick them out instead. Like I said on the campaign trail, I’m keeping us in this war until we achieve victory. And if I have to change who we’re fighting in order to have someone to have victory over, then that’s what a maverick would do.”

Vice President Palin echoed the President’s statements. “Sure, we’d like ‘em to be the good guys and help us and all, but if they want to be the bad guys, well then, as we say in Alaska, you don’t want to be the moose in this equation.”

Reportedly, McCain’s national security team is currently working on the problem of how to invade a country that you’re already occupying. “This would be so much easier if we could just do a head fake and shift everybody across the border into Iran,” said Secretary of Defense Rick Davis. “They’d never see that one coming.”

]]> By: lurker http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301154 lurker Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:23:10 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301154 McCain doesn't know poop about the middle east. All he can talk about is "victory and honor" Bla Bla Bla. McCain doesn’t know poop about the middle east. All
he can talk about is “victory and honor” Bla Bla Bla.

]]> By: Doc Rock http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301124 Doc Rock Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:10:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301124 What a leader! What a leader!

]]> By: Marie http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301120 Marie Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:08:47 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301120 If an arrangement is made to remove our troops from Iraq without a "victory parade" McCain will have a hard time continuing the fight. But I am with Wayne here, can the president sign this without congressional approval? And, as BB points out, will someone ask McCain what definition he gives to victory in Iraq? The war is over, we are now in occupation aren't we? RUC, I see you also have similar questions. If an arrangement is made to remove our troops from Iraq without a “victory parade” McCain will have a hard time continuing the fight.
But I am with Wayne here, can the president sign this without congressional approval?
And, as BB points out, will someone ask McCain what definition he gives to victory in Iraq?
The war is over, we are now in occupation aren’t we? RUC, I see you also have similar questions.

]]> By: Marie http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301106 Marie Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301106 Not about Iraq, but is about McCain: John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states.... As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by ACORN, finance records detailing payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul threatens to derail that argument. The committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the RNC and the California Republican Party, made the payment to Sproul for the purposes of “voter registration”. Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote. McCain will probably say, Sproul was not convicted, but this would certainly question his claims against ACORN - but will the press ask him? Not about Iraq, but is about McCain:
John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states….
As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by ACORN, finance records detailing payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul threatens to derail that argument.
The committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the RNC and the California Republican Party, made the payment to Sproul for the purposes of “voter registration”.

Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote.

McCain will probably say, Sproul was not convicted, but this would certainly question his claims against ACORN – but will the press ask him?

]]> By: Zooey http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301104 Zooey Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:01:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301104 <em>Wayne A. Schneider Says: October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm </em> Presidents get around that little "treaty" problem by calling it something else. Who needs that god-damned piece of paper? /sarc Wayne A. Schneider Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Presidents get around that little “treaty” problem by calling it something else. Who needs that god-damned piece of paper?
/sarc

]]> By: Badmoodman http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301098 Badmoodman Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:59:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301098 <em>McCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat. </em> - - Oh Johnny, don't let Gen. Petraeus, your man-love, hear you use the "V" word. McCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.

– - Oh Johnny, don’t let Gen. Petraeus, your man-love, hear you use the “V” word.

]]> By: Wayne A. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301096 Wayne A. Schneider Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:55:17 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301096 TP: Could you clear something up for us? Does the president have the authority to commit the US to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) without it being approved by Congress (or even just the Senate) first? Isn't a SOFA just another form of treaty? And don't all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate? I find it hard to believe that we would let one person (a president) commit US troops to long-term commitments without Congressional approval. What happens if Congress decides they no longer wish to fund this SOFA? TP: Could you clear something up for us? Does the president have the authority to commit the US to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) without it being approved by Congress (or even just the Senate) first? Isn’t a SOFA just another form of treaty? And don’t all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate? I find it hard to believe that we would let one person (a president) commit US troops to long-term commitments without Congressional approval. What happens if Congress decides they no longer wish to fund this SOFA?

]]> By: Tired of being lied to http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301092 Tired of being lied to Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:51:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301092 I wonder what promises McCain's lobby-based advisers have promised to their real 'employers' to keep this defense industry gravy train rolling along in a McCain administration? Maybe that's why McCain is dodging the question. No war, no money to Haliburton, etc. I wonder what promises McCain’s lobby-based advisers have promised to their real ‘employers’ to keep this defense industry gravy train rolling along in a McCain administration?

Maybe that’s why McCain is dodging the question. No war, no money to Haliburton, etc.

]]> By: Buckie Boy http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301086 Buckie Boy Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:48:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301086 What, exactly do you consider victory John? And victory over who? Those pissed off Iraqis who want us out of their country? How do you know when you have won? I do think that these 4 questions make you out to be a lying fool. What, exactly do you consider victory John?

And victory over who?

Those pissed off Iraqis who want us out of their country?

How do you know when you have won?

I do think that these 4 questions make you out to be a lying fool.

]]> By: RUCerious http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301084 RUCerious Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:47:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301084 <em>I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.</em> He's always said it, just never defined what the hell he means by 'victory' or 'defeat'. It's an occupation, dumbass, there is no victory only inevitable withdrawal. See Romans, Britain, History book. I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.

He’s always said it, just never defined what the hell he means by ‘victory’ or ‘defeat’.

It’s an occupation, dumbass, there is no victory only inevitable withdrawal. See Romans, Britain, History book.

]]> By: RUCerious http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/comment-page-1/#comment-5301082 RUCerious Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:45:24 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/mccain-iraq-security-agreement/#comment-5301082 So I suppose McIIIrd wants to re-invade them to establish our authorita? So I suppose McIIIrd wants to re-invade them to establish our authorita?

]]>