-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
Obama's full answer there was no less disingenuous. The fact that he can't admit he's distorting McCain's words is bizarre IMO. He could just as easily say, "hey you're right I looked at the clip and he wasn't talking about being at war for that long, but even his suggestion we could have a long-term peaceful presence there is unrealistic IMO" and he'd get a million kudos for making the right point rather than a cheap, purely-political stab that's off the mark.mashoutposse said:
scorcho: Of course, and if you were making that point in 2003 or four it might have even been considered novel. But US foreign policy isn't really being swayed by idealistic bookworms anymore.
APF said:
Exactly. Obama would have every right to say "With all due respect, John McCain is delusional if he thinks Iraq is ever going to be a place where American troops can be stationed there and not feel danger. He was out of touch with reality when he authorized the war, and he's out of touch now"
But what he keeps implying is JUST. NOT. TRUE.
siamesedreamer
Banned
belvedere said:
You need to reaquaint yourself with what McCain said. "War" implicitly implies that US soldiers are dying. He said the exact opposite.
And leave it to Obama to try to wiggle out of his own trap by saying we've been "occupying" South Korea and Japan. Occupying? Really now...
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
siamesedreamer said:
:lol Typical. Miss the forest from the trees. I love how she quotes Frank Rich's op-ed, the one in which he rips McCain a new asshole for his "position" on Iraq.
What's even better is that McCain's statement is even more asinine taken in the correct context.
But keep on keeping on. We're all done with this sort of bullshit. These little made-up "Gotcha!" moments. Spike Lee said it right and hopefully the Rich Lowry's of the world will all be out of work soon enough.
belvedere said:
Wow.
Just wow
The whole premise of McCain's statement was that IF (notice the word if) there was no longer a danger to U.S troops and the region was completely stabilized, he would have no opposition to a continuing U.S presence like the country has in other parts of the world.
Obama's claim/lie is that McCain would "be at war" in Iraq for up to 100 years.
Surely you see the distinction. McCain's statement assumes there is no more violence; Obama's representation of that statement is that McCain will stay in Iraq even with violence.
Azih said:
Of course it is. Not my point. Obama and his supporters on this board hold the Obama campaign to a higher standard. That is genuinely part of his appeal to me and others, so I'm sure as hell going to call him on it when he does it.
Mccain may or may have not specifically stated that an occupation of Iraq for an extended time would be fine with him. But thats certainly going to be the case if he sees our aiding of the Iraqi people as a 'Moral Obligation'. There will be casualties as long as we have a presence in Iraq and we will be in Iraq for quite a while (If the reconstruction of Iraq is our goal). The Republicans are full of themselves if they think anything but a long term occupation will result in substantial strides. It's quite easy to understand, Iraq does not want us in their country.
Dahellisdat
Member
What are you talking about?schuelma said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
Clinton, Dean, and Obama have been distorting McCain's 100 year comment for months, it's nothing new. Obvious it's going to be a big talking point in the general election for them, which is apparently more important than telling the truth.
It's a lie, end of story
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
It's a lie, end of story
Sure it's a distortion of McCain's exact words. I wish he wouldn't use it, would just use the phrase "In Iraq for 100 years". Same effect, less distortion. C'est la vie. Once the general election hits, it'll be nuanced and focus more on the whole "keep your eyes on the ball" with regard to Al Qaeda.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
schuelma said:
So fucking what? Don't get upset cuz he can get away with it. See, if we like someone, when we all know he's the best bet to help get this country out the crapper, we let shit slide like that. I don't know what kind of white horse you think we here are riding but what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the old geezer.
I see the distinction. I was one of the first ones in this very thread to make it actually.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Azih said:
How is it old school politics when Obama himself said to check Youtube?
schuelma said:
I'm aware of the distinction. Unfortunately, it hasn't been painted like what you're so desperately trying to see.
In almost every instance where Obama has brought this up, his point was clearly about the efficiency in bringing this war to an end in a timely fashion. His opinion obviously differs from McCain's in that if done right, there won't be a need for troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Your stance is understandable though, as it's obviously hard to determine that when you selectively view video clips that conveniently leave insignificant facts like that out.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
schuelma said:
Am I? Really? Please, show me all my posts where I pretend to be Obama.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
APF said:
I agree that Obama previously distorted his position as others have distorted Obama's stance on Pakistan and al Qaeda. However, Obama's most recent statements have been much more careful ("presence" instead of "war").
At the end of the day, the fact that a peaceful occupation is an undetermined number of years of fighting away renders McCain's stance tantamount to an indefinite extension of the war. In this way, McCain is being just as disingenuous as Obama/Clinton. You're right, though -- Obama should have probably worded his response closer to your suggestion.
Dahellisdat
Member
god damn this thread is full of nitpicking fools
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
siamesedreamer said:
um.. no he wasnt. the full quote shows that he is talking about mccain's quotes on youtube.. not his.
electricpirate
Member
Despite SD's clever vid, his entire quote speaks more to McCain's inability to say when and how the war would end.
I agree, Obama should say he was wrong about the 100 years comment, but that doesn't make Obama's comments in the Today interview any less wrong, even if they don't answer the question at all.
I agree, Obama should say he was wrong about the 100 years comment, but that doesn't make Obama's comments in the Today interview any less wrong, even if they don't answer the question at all.
Dahellisdat
Member
Yeah could you explain how what you said there makes sense?APF said:
*sigh* You people. McCain agreed with the hypothetical "100 years" presence because he asserted the strategic importance of having US forces in the region. Saying Obama is planning a withdrawal from Iraq in such a way that US forces won't be needed in the region--an idea that reaches hallucinogenic levels of optimism--necessitates US forces not being in the region; in other words, the poster's assertion makes no sense unless that's Obama's plan, which it is not.Dahellisdat said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
theBishop said:
I'm not suggesting anything. Websites like that you have to take with a grain of salt. Same with FreeRepublic or any other partisan site.
Dahellisdat
Member
APF said:
I'm not following you here. He's not calling for removing all forces from the entire middle east/africa. He's calling for removal of our forces from Iraq.APF said:
Dahellisdat
Member
APF said:
Ok then.....so why exactly were you arguing with belvedere?
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Did that Today Show lady (Meredith Viera?) quote any more portions of Rich's op-ed? How is it possible to read that scathing commentary and only pull away one particular sentence that has almost nothing to do with what Rich is saying (save that McCain is horrible enough without purposely misconstruing that quote).
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Agreed.Dahellisdat said:
If this all we have to worry about from our candidates we're in good shape.
Xisiqomelir
Member
I have a problem with people going with "bububu he just meant 100 more years like Japan or SK".
The difference, which should be patently obvious, is that active hostilities ceased in the Korean war and WW2. Iraq, on the other hand, is a raging hellhole.
The difference, which should be patently obvious, is that active hostilities ceased in the Korean war and WW2. Iraq, on the other hand, is a raging hellhole.
Dahellisdat
Member
Let's say I actually did read your posts....can you still tell me what you were trying to say?APF said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10556616&postcount=6686Dahellisdat said:
bob_arctor: because journalists love John McCain and will fact-check you if you blatantly misspeak about him
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Is it running behind schedule?Tamanon said:
Xisiqomelir
Member
APF said:
Well APF, I suppose it depends on how you define 'war'. IMO, the current situation in Iraq is a war. Also, it will never change to a peaceful occupation similar to the US presence in Japan. So, 100 more years in Iraq would be 100 more years of war.
Dahellisdat
Member
I still don't understand why you were arguing....what he said agrees with the conclusion we came to.APF said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked