Barack Obama’s interview with Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe shows the candidate did learn something on his World Tour:
Wolffe: Based on what you’ve seen and heard on this trip, is there anything that has led you to review any policy, tweak things, rethink anything?
Obama: Our success in Afghanistan is going to be deeply dependent not just on getting more troops there, which we need, but also some sustained high-level engagement with Pakistanâ€â€something that I discussed before but I think is significantly more urgent than even I had imagined. Basically there doesn’t appear to be any pressure at all being placed on Al Qaeda, on these training camps, these safe havens, in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas].
Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh writes about Pakistan’s growing instability beyond the tribal areas. The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin recently noted the same, adding that Pakistan’s new coalition government has indicated it is prepared to rehabilitate disgraced nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose proliferation network that led to dangerous transfers of nuclear technology and designs to countries like North Korea, Iran and Lybia. Coughlin adds:
This is just one of several disturbing developments to emerge from Pakistan since the new coalition government took power earlier this year, in reaction to the West putting pressure on Mr Musharraf to return the country to democratic rule.
At the time, both London and Washington believed that Pakistan having a democratic government would increase its co-operation in fighting terrorism. In fact, the opposite appears to have happened.
They may have believed that, but that belief was not particularly reality-based, as noted here last year. At least some people — including Barack Obama — may be waking up on this.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Iraq, where Obama tells Newsweek that the size any residual US force will be “entirely conditions-based.” Colin Kahl, the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq, thinks the size of that force may be between 60,000-80,000 troops — which will not look like much of a withdrawal to most of his primary base. Perhaps the next interviewer will ask the follow-up Newsweek missed, i.e., how to reconcile a near-impossible withdrawal timetable with an entirely conditions-based residual force. But I would not bet on it.
Sheeze, and it’s you who are so full of worldly wisdom. I think Obama should be reading your newsletter instead of the NYT.
Our success in Afghanistan is going to be deeply dependent not just on getting more troops there, which we need, but also some sustained high-level engagement with Pakistan…
If he remains consistent with this, his base is going to go apeshit, if he doesn’t, it will be another devasting flip-flop. All McCain has to do is stay marginally visible and not fuck up too badly, Obama will do the rest.
If Obama had read Bill Roggio everyday at LongWarJournal he wouldn’t be surprised at what is going down in Pakistan. Roggio and the rest of the gang at LWJ have been following this story with a magnifying glass for over two years now. If Obama can not get to it himself surely he has staff people who can read it and gist it to him. There’s just no excuse, it’s not a new condition.
He was just on Meet The Press and said that the residual force would have to be capable of “oversight and overwatching” of Iraqi combat operations. Or in other words, we’ll still need combat troops to back them up.
O’Same. Enjoy your meal, cultists. And your endless war in Afghanistan.
Which makes me wonder if anyone has heard Baracky’s exit plan for A’stan. I’m told that you simply must have an exit plan when you’re in a conflict.
Obama’s base doesn’t have the problem with going after Al Qaeda that you may think it does, BMoe. I’d guess most of us see Code Pinksters as a distantly-related catlady aunt rather than our entire family tree. And it wouldn’t be much of a flipflop for Obama to put more troops and emphasis in Afghanistan, since he’s proposed that for as long as I remember.
I’m skeptical about the value of high-level engagement with Pakistan, however. That country isn’t as stable as anyone anti-Islamist would like, and if its government lets us do whatever we need to against AQ in its borders there will be serious problems. The buildup in Afghanistan will be accepted to a large degree, but Pakistan raids will have to be officially denied much like bombing in Cambodia was back in a different war.
sustained high-level engagement with Pakistan
Yeah, so he said before.
By “high-level”, I assume he’s talking about B-52s with a full 60,000 lb. bomb load.
Snicker.
SB&P, does that mean that Baracky just wants to bomb innocent brown people? How many people have to die to satiate this warmonger?
NOT IN MY NAME!!!
Obama’s base doesn’t have the problem with going after Al Qaeda that you may think it does, BMoe.
….
I’m skeptical about the value of high-level engagement with Pakistan, however.
You just can’t make this shit up.
In other words, Pablo, NO BLOOD FOR GRANITE!
Obama’s base doesn’t have the problem with going after Al Qaeda that you may think it does, BMoe.
How about some explication for the nuance-impaired, jon?
Why is it okay to go after AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not Iraq?
jon:
Did you miss that part of the post, jon, or are you trying to to do a little mis-direction? How about those just to the right of the Code Pink cat ladies? Lots and lots of netroots from KOS and DU and HuffPo and others will be less than amused at the idea of a long term significant force in Iraq.
But that’s OK, we’ll be able to change the troop deployments to fight the “good” war, at least until the balance of the left decides that that’s not worth it anymore. Let’s also try to remember that the current conditions in Iraq would have been a wet dream if Obama had been allowed to put his Jan 2007 troop withdrawal into action.
So pardon me if I am less impressed with the ever evolving cameleon proposing long term strategy with one eye to the poll breakdowns and another to the media spin.
thor,
If you have nothing of substance to add, you coyld skip commenting. Or I could skip posting. Which you would enjoy, but at the moment would likely bring this site to a screeching halt. And then you would be left jerking off to the pictures of O! taped above your bed.
Beyond the short term, if this site continues in some other form, my participation will be conditioned on my ability to deal with people who add nothing to the discussion. Consider yourself on notice.
I think Obama should be reading your newsletter instead of the NYT
If O! were smart he would. But O! enjoys the tongue-baths he gets from the MSM and people like you too much.
Karl
We must consider programming some type of “timeout” room or “dunce cap” we can slap on trolls and flamers. Some sort of place we can park’em rather than just banning
so others can point and giggle at ’em.
Hmmm, am I smelling bridges burned?
I agree that we need more troops in Afghanistan, I agree that we need to send someone like Patraeus there (the effort wouldn’t be identical to Iraq, but concepts he used and proposed could be adapted to it). I just think it’s sad that Senator Obama thinks the only way to do that is to gut Iraq and won’t admit the surge he wants used in Afghanistan was a success in Iraq. If it didn’t work in Iraq, why try it in Afghanistan? If it worked in Iraq, why not admit it? But then, we know why. But attacking Pakistan? No, let’s not, sir.
This sounded like a big deal to me, but not a lot of discussion yet. Maybe at Newsweek but I don’t click on Newsweek ones cause they are teh farce I think.
The bombings in India are worrisome too hf. Don’t like to see. According to this http://tinyurl.com/6yfa73 story from LWJ, the Indian intelligence bureau sees an Al Qaeda link.
There will be some troops in Iraq for a long time. This isn’t a surprise to me, and whether it’s 40 or 60 or 80 thousand doesn’t make much difference. The Kosfolk, DU, and Huffers won’t be happy with it, but they can howl all they like. Obama said he’d start withdrawing forces, and he will. He didn’t say he’d have us leave entirely in whatever timeline, since he’s not stupid enough to leave himself no wiggle room (even his timelines always had “conditions on the ground” clauses) and he probably doesn’t think that’s practical anyhow. He’s always said “combat troops” (which ones aren’t?) were the ones to be redeployed or at least withdrawn from Iraq.
Things are such in Iraq that we can remove a lot of troops. “Conditions on the ground” say not all of them. Whether this situation is because of our troops, the Iraqis figuring out they want a government, the stupidity of the insurgency, Iranian-backed Shiites lying in wait rather than showing themselves, Turkey controlling its border, or whatever combination of those factors, the situation is such that the Iraqis are asking us to start moving out. but the government says we shouldn’t leave entirely, since Maliki still needs some staying for practical cover and some leaving for political cover. Some troops have got to go, or else Maliki’s coalition loses to radical Shiites, the government becomes West Iran, Kurdistan says “We’re outta here,” and even more of the Sunnis go to Jordan and Syria.
Obama controls the narrative here. The lasting remnant of the surge, which was successful under a definition that suggests everything good that happened recently in Iraq is part of it, has made it possible for many troops to be withdrawn. Yes, Obama was against it, but he’s now on the side of the Iraqi government which wants us to have some troops leave. The Iraqi people will like that, the American people will like that, and the people who won’t like that are McCain and his supporters, since it looks like a victory for Obama. His proposals are running the show, shaping the stories about it, and it’s going to drive you nuts. When Bush called for a withdrawal on a timetable, using ridiculous euphemisms or not, he endorsed the Obama plan. Maliki endorses it, no matter what our government ham-handedly tried to tell him to say. And the voters will like it, too. McCain can run on the success of the surge, but since the surge succeeded he has what? His insistence that we should do whatever we want in Iraq? That’ll go over well here and there, I’m sure.
But surging in Afghanistan is a lot of blah blah blah I think. That whole deal is a super long-term commitment. Success in Afghanistan is stupid to talk about. They’re the fucking Haiti of Asia, bless their hearts. We’ll just have to hang in there I think. Baracky isn’t really a hang in there kind of guy though. He’s really flighty. But also just somewhere in this thread someone should say Canada, you rock. Well, when you want to, but it’s noticed.
Darleen,
I have consistently offered thor the options of having a point or avoiding my threads. He is a serial offender.
I have other things to do that are less work, more fun and more profitable than this.
Christopher Taylor,
If more troops are to go to Afghanistan but not come from Iraq, where will they come from?
President Bush has not “called for a withdrawal on a timetable” in any manner, shape or form. Endlessly repeating lies will not persuade.
(even his timelines always had “conditions on the ground†clauses)
Always? Really?
/snort
jon you should just market your post #20 to some amusement park as a ride, but really all the spinning would make people too sick so maybe it wouldn’t work anyway. But it in no way reflects what Obama’s positions have been on Iraq.
“…His proposals are running the show…”
You know how laughable that is, don’t you? And yet you can bring yourself to say it anyway!
Do you think we have 80,000 non combat troops in Iraq, jon? And if we’re anywhere near that, how many of those are useless unless the combat troops they’re supposed to be supporting are also there. Obama promised his base he’d get us out of Iraq in 16 months. Now that he’s got the nomination, he’s giving them the finger and adopting the current plan for Iraq.
O’Same!
The Bush plan is a victory for Obama? You might want to remember who the President is, and who has overseen the drawdown of troops made possible by the current conditions on the ground.
Hmmm. I just went to http://www.obama.com to see if he does indeed have any sort of “exit plan” for Afghanistan, but all I found is what may or may not be a great deal on high-end electronics.
BB, that IS his plan there. And since most of us can’t read it, he’ll be free to change it whenever he wants.
“BB, that IS his plan there. And since most of us can’t read it, he’ll be free to change it whenever he wants.”
That’ll be convenient if he ever feels the need to follow McCain’s “lead” on something. In the meantime, he’s offering me hope that I won’t have to pay high-end prices for brand-name DVD players. Truly, this is change that I can ascribe to.
OK, let’s go with this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Darfur, Congo, North Korea, Japan, China Australia, Iran. No mention whatsoever of Afghanistan. So, that being the real front in the WOT, perhaps is has it’s own Issues section, like Iraq does! Let’s look: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Nope. Nothing.
Change you can believe in but you can’t see! Have you accepted Barack Obama as your personal Savior?
He didn’t say he’d have us leave entirely in whatever timeline
Really.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.
Spin away, jon, but your messiah has flip-flopped on this like a beached trout having a grand mal.
Maybe Bush is standing firm on his stance against any timetables, but his government was negotiating “time horizons” in Iraq. Maybe it was political cover for Maliki, but it was happening. A timetable is what the Iraqis want, they’ll get it, and it will happen.
That the negotiations went nowhere may be a point in Bush’s favor, but it doesn’t do McCain any good. It’s time for the Iraqis to be in charge, ready or not. We can declare victory for many reasons, but to continue as we are isn’t going to happen so you guys might as well decide what you’ve won and get on with the crowing. There will be a withdrawal, and you might as well adjust your rhetoric accordingly.
Yes, Obama was against it, but he’s now on the side of the Iraqi government which wants us to have some troops leave.
I think you should report to Obama headquarters for a pravda upgrade, jon.
jon: sooner or later you’re going to have to admit that Obama was wrong and Bush was right.
Why not now?
Spies, et cetera,
The link you helpfully provide points to a quote about “combat brigades.” Thank you for clarifying Obama’s position.
Thank you for clarifying Obama’s position.
Snicker.
You don’t even believe this bullshit yourself, jon.
Why do you expect anyone else to believe it?
Omigod … Frank Rich moves up from mere ankle-licking of Obama the Savior (about 30 or so inches)
You don’t pull the bread from the oven until it’s finished baking, jon. You just have to put it back in if you do. That is unless you don’t mind having crap for bread.
“OK, let’s go with this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/”
Fair enough.
“Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Darfur, Congo, North Korea, Japan, China Australia, Iran. No mention whatsoever of Afghanistan. So, that being the real front in the WOT, perhaps is has it’s own Issues section, like Iraq does! Let’s look: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/”
Afghanistan is discussed briefly on his Iraq page. John McCain’s Iraq page has not a single mention of Afghanistan, and he has no Afghanistan page of his own. There is not even a “Following People to the Gates of Hell” page in which he lays out that particular and very serious plan of his.
“Change you can believe in but you can’t see!”
You should be careful about denouncing candidates for only addressing certain issues on their website in a limited fashion:
From http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/campaign-websit.html:
“Here’s a list of issues that Obama has a page on and McCain doesn’t: Civil Rights, Disabilities, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Poverty, Service, Seniors and Social Security, Technology, Urban Policy, Women…. Here’s a list of issues McCain covers that have no counterpart on Obama’s Issues page: The Sanctity of Life (question: why is “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers” part of McCain’s Sanctity of Life policy?), Judicial Philosophy, Space Program.”
Bush was right about what? Iraq was a menace when it was in Saddam’s power? Okay. Point for Obama and Bush. Iraq was a safe haven for Al Qaeda? Point for Obama. Late partial credit for Bush after the overthrow. Only the surge could save Iraq? Bush deserves some political points for its success, and Obama doesn’t get anything. But there’s no way to know if it would have worked without the brand-name of “Surge” since, according to the all-good-that-happened-was-surge-related proponents, much of the success was related to changes in tactics the US and Iraqis were implementing anyhow. Not a win for Obama, certainly. And definitely a win for our military.
Okay, Obama was wrong about the surge. But he’s right about what to do now that it’s worked.
. Only the surge could save Iraq? Bush deserves some political points for its success, and Obama doesn’t get anything.
Translation: Bush was right and Obama was wrong.
C’mon, we know you can do it!
of the success was related to changes in tactics the US and Iraqis were implementing anyhow
The surge was the signature piece of Patreaus’ counter-insurgency tactic, the one YOU are referring to.
And O! gives little credit to it at all … he thinks it is just a coincidence and his Magic Tour only “reinforces” everything he believed before he got there.
O! is jawdroppingly arrogant.
John McCain’s Iraq page has not a single mention of Afghanistan, and he has no Afghanistan page of his own.
Wrong.
O! saw all those troops watching Fox and figured it had to be orders from the top. He just couldn’t imagine that maybe those troops didn’t want to watch content produced by forces hostile to their mission.
So yeah, maybe Barry needs to cultivate some alternate news sources, it might be good for him.
BB
Excitable Andy is not exactly a credible source.
Baracky wanted failure there, he wasn’t just wrong. His aims were frustrated.
If O was wrong about the surge (which was a pretty important event), why should we belive he’s right about what to do now?
“…Obama was wrong about the surge…” WAS WRONG, jon”? How about is still wrong.
Obama gets deductions for his stance against the strategic change of Jan 2007. That’s points taken off your plus column there jon. Then we have to come to terms with his current insistence that the “surge” is still the wrong policy to have undertaken, flying in the face of obvious success. How shall we deduct for that ridiculous position?
What is truly sickening is that Obama had positioned himself so that if our military succeeded it would hurt him politically. He actively took measures in congress to bring that about by defunding our military. Now that our military succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation he tries to reposition himself to take advantage of it. Fuck him.
Baracky is trying to finesse Irzq with his gay-assed prissy happy talk but the fucker can’t even begin to articulate Iraq’s strategic importance. Why is it important we win there, Baracky? Why is Afghanistan of greater strategic importance? Take your time, sweetcheeks.
*Iraq*
jon, you seem to have reduced this debate to the right wanting more troops and the left wanting less, period. That misses the mark by a mile. The right wants to win, and we are doing just that. The left wants to lose, and well, you’ve lost.
This year has seen 5 brigades come home from Iraq, and Barack Obama didn’t have a damned thing to do with it. They came home because their job was done, and they did so without a timetable imposing a withdrawal date on them.
We want to leave at our leisure. You and yours wanted to cut and run in failure and fear, and all you’ve got left now is to try and spin this into something that makes your leaders look like something other than what they so obviously were: wrong.
Here’s a list of issues that Obama has a page on and McCain doesn’t: Civil Rights
Wrong.
Disabilities
Wrong.
Faith
Wrong.
Family
Wrong.
The same is true for all the others.
As Darleen said, you really should take Excitable Andy with a large boulder of salt.
SBP, I think what he means, is McCain doesn’t have a drop-down linked page titled “Civil Rights” which obviously means he doesn’t care.
Spinning an empty counterfactual tale of “how things would have gone better if my plan had been adopted” as Obama did in the Couric interview only a few days ago just won’t cut it, jon. To gain credibility, Obama, not you and the Obama chorus, Obama needs to step up and declare forcefully that he made an awful blunder in his position on COIN and the related surge of troops. Will he? Does he have it in him?
I doubt it. But we’ll see.
and I’ve been meaning to ask RTO, but he’s been busy, so I’ll ask here. Could any of you please explain the difference between a “combat brigade” and a “peacekeeping brigade”? I’m sure it’s subtle.
Ha!
BB,
It’s mentioned there, yes. But you’ll notice it isn’t mentioned in his Iraq Plan. He has no Afghanistan plan. Nice boner on the McCain claim, BTW.
actually, he said, “Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach,…”
You know, the notion of actually sending more troops to Afghanistan just for the sake of making it look as if you are doing something appears to have siezed the Obama Campaign like a security blanket.
Jesus Hussein Christ out to ask General Boris Gromov how well that worked out. The Russians peaked at 120,000 men assigned to the 40th Army. The notion that “more men” in Afghanistan will simply turn the tide runs into the wall of prickly Afghan feelings against foreigners. Barack is simply trying to butch up for the voters, but the notion that Afghanistan can be conquered by numbers is a fantasy.
It’s how the men are used that is critical. Further, it is in the nature of the Democrats to
1. Blame Bushhitler.
2. Kick the Can down the Road because it’s Bushhitler’s fault.
Nothing will be solved without a serious set of actions into the Frontier States, Al Qaeda’s last redoubt. Barack simply doesn’t have the pair to carry that off, period. So he’s all talk and bullshit.
But we knew that.
I understand that we could use reinforcements in Afghanistan, but given the history of the country and the nature of it’s inability to roll out the Welcome Wagon to foreigners, I’d really advise two things.
1. Extreme caution in any buildup.
2. Vote for McCain.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Correct the following sentance:
Jesus Hussein Christ ought to ask General Boris Gromov how well that worked out.
Karl, short of bannination powers, I think you should be allowed to press a button that inserts festive pink cat ladies or repeating text of “SUGARTITS” in a large font as a ridiculosity warning to others.
The going into Pakistan thing is certifiably nuts. Even the idea of an Afghan surge is kinda nuts if it isn’t fleshed out better – it ain’t Iraq.
I’m just glad as Hell my brother is getting out of that Flintstone wasteland before the election [knocks formica].
An Access Hollywood ratings jump?
A Farging Churchill, that Baracky.
Don’t think of elephants for the next five minutes, maggie.
he may not be. ;D
okay, let me explain, RTO got home and proceeded to get cranky with the news and this year he’s all, “Why can’t I be in Afghanistan for this election like the last one?” Ignorance is bliss.
Could any of you please explain the difference between a “combat brigade†and a “peacekeeping brigade�
I think “peacekeeping brigades” aren’t allowed to defend themselves.
You know, the way Obama likes things to be?
Maybe he’s planning on sending “community organizers” into Afghanistan. It won’t actually accomplish much there, but it should generate a lot more registered Democrats in Cook County.
One other thought on the ‘stan. Technically, we aren’t the ones in charge there, so I don’t know how helpful it is to get terribly specific about plans. Unless of course one wants to peeve a few NATO members.
(this is one thing that kills me about O! he’s more than happy to push our allies out of the way over Afghanistan and Iranian negotiations, but then stresses we really should be working with other countries. um….)
“Okay, Obama was wrong about the surge. But he’s right about what to do now that it’s worked.
Oh, now I get it.
O!bama is lying through his teeth. Got it.
#66 SarahW
Over at my mothballed place, I got to marking the trolls with Drew
Maybe Drew should come back from haitus.
Pakistan raids will have to be officially denied much like bombing in Cambodia was back in a different war.
Unbelievable. These people really can’t escape the sixties. If O! can pull secret raids and bombing runs in Pakistan he really must be magic.
…there’s no way to know if it would have worked without the brand-name of “Surge†since, according to the all-good-that-happened-was-surge-related proponents, much of the success was related to changes in tactics the US and Iraqis were implementing anyhow.
The change in tactics was part of the surge, jon.
“SBP, I think what he means, is McCain doesn’t have a drop-down linked page titled “Civil Rights†which obviously means he doesn’t care.”
Listen to your friend here, SBP. She’s got a good handle on sentence comprehension, even if she does like to put words in my mouth.
“John McCain’s Iraq page has not a single mention of Afghanistan, and he has no Afghanistan page of his own. Wrong.”
That link is to a press release, not an issues page. If we’re going to count press releases as an “issues page”, then, yes, Obama has tons of “issues pages” on Afghanistan, despite the contention voiced here that he has no such thing. So, either both candidates have “issues pages” on Afghanistan by virtue of having sent out a press release on the subject, or neither do. I’ll let you figure that out while on move on to…
“Excitable Andy is not exactly a credible source.”
I did not source “Excitable Andy.” I sourced a blogger known as Hilzoy.
“Here’s a list of issues that Obama has a page on and McCain doesn’t: Civil Rights. Wrong.”
Your link goes to a Google search page. Is there a particular search result that you’re trying to pass off as a “Civil Rights” page?
“Disabilities Wrong.”
Okay, you got me there.
“Faith Wrong.”
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you click on your own link and tell me which one of those search results is John McCain’s “faith” page? Here’s a hint to get you going – none of them are.
“Family
Wrong.”
Okay, this link take me to something which is not a page on “family” but instead seems to have something to do with jobs.
“The same is true for all the others.”
I can probably be forgiven for not taking your word for it, the majority of your links not going to what you claimed they would go to and whatnot.
“It’s mentioned there, yes. But you’ll notice it isn’t mentioned in his Iraq Plan. He has no Afghanistan plan.”
You mean, no Afghanistan plan in general, or just not a web page on the subject?
“Nice boner on the McCain claim, BTW.”
I would suggest a review of the above conflict. You attack Obama for not having an issues page on Afghanistan, I claim that Obama has lots of issue pages that McCain does not and point out that, if a candidate not having an issue page for a certain topic means that a candidate does not have a plan for that particular topic, then McCain has very little going on. Some yahoo posts a bunch of links which he claims are to McCain issue pages but are mostly not any such thing (although he did score with Disabilities). A couple of people wrongly claim that this information came from Andrew Sullivan. And, of course, it is only I who have committed a “boner” because, so far, I was wrong about McCain having an issues page on Disabilities.
Even Hillary was not dumb enough to stake her entire candicy on the failure of the United States military, Obama was. He did so in order to “steal” the nomination from her. Now that he won the nomination he seeks to run to some sort of mushy middle ground on the issue where he can take credit for some of the good that has happened in Iraq in the last year. Thor and other Obama followers are more than happy to let him lie to their faces if it helps him win the election.
cite?
“McCain doesn’t have a drop-down linked page titled “Civil Rights†which obviously means he doesn’t care.”
I took that as meaning that I was trying to imply that McCain doesn’t care about Civil Rights because he doesn’t have a fancy web page on the subject. Perhaps I was wrong to take it that way.
and not understanding WTF you’re on about doesn’t count.
perhaps you were. I think that was more about the first person that made that comparison. If that’s not why it matters, why make a list?
No blood for Karahi !
(that’s about as constructive a comment as I have to add to this lofty discussion.. Call me when you return to dick and fart jokes.. or talking oatmeal..)
see, putting words in your mouth would be:
shorter BBrown: McCain is old and doesn’t have a page that’s easily navigable.
Obama responds to attacks from his left-wing base on his “conditions-based withdrawal” from Iraq:
“This is not the cut-and-run that I knew.”
Barrett:
That link is to a press release, not an issues page.
The page is entitled “John McCain’s Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan” and gives details. Post a link to a similar page on Obama’s site or STFU.
I posted Google search results to show that McCain not only has a page, but multiple pages on every single one of these issues.
A couple of people wrongly claim that this information came from Andrew Sullivan.
Yeah, that would be because of the
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/campaign-websit.html
link in your post.
Your spin attempt is about as effective as a cat trying to bury a turd on a hardwood floor. At this stage, you’re only making yourself look more foolish than you already do. You were dead wrong about this. Time to admit it and move on.
oh and BUSH SUCKS! okay, maybe that one time I put words in your mouth. but I at least tried to bring you back to topic.
BB
Hilzoy as part of Excitable Andy’s stable is not exactly credible either.
This place looks different when I’m sober.
There’s a couch and a fucking naked plant in the corner.
I could have used that couch last night, and…wait…that’s not a naked plant.
Eeewwww! Will someone please give jon back his pants?
It’s Sunday furchristsake!
If O! can pull secret raids and bombing runs in Pakistan he really must be magic.
One second thought, maybe he is going to use the same camouflage he uses to disguise his positions.
um, interesting side note, SBP, I went to johnmccain.com and did a search for Afghanistan and that didn’t come up. which just goes to show how stupid he and his people are.
;p
Baracky’s warmongering aside, Bush is leaving us in pretty good shape it looks like. It’s a better world cause of him, what with the new model of freedom in the Middle East and all. Baracky doesn’t understand that it’s that freedom, that ideal, that’s in the balance over there. Baracky can still spectacularly lose this thing even while maintaining security gains. This is because he disdains. He’s really big on the disdaining. Not to get too specific, cause he gets disdainy anytime the US asserts its ideals. This is why he’s always so eager to take a hopeychangey Baracky shit on Karzai’s head. His plan for Afghanistan is two-pronged…
* increase US troop strength there so he has an excuse for defunding weapons programs irrelevant to the Afghan theater and, equally importantly, he can have Afghanistan serve as an excuse for military inaction else where. “Our troops are spread too thin” he will chirp happily.
* delegitimize the Afghan government. They will always fall short in his hopeychangey eyes. This is because it’s important to Baracky that American military efforts not be seen as effective in the spread of democracy.
B Moe
Camouflage is all O! has … there is no man behind the curtain
BB, you seem to be missing that Baracky says Afghanistan is the Holy Grail in thw WOT, and yet he doesn’t have his plan for it listed on his Super Important Things page. Meanwhile the Iraq plan he campaigned on thus far has been scrubbed and replaced with Stay The Course.
Sad and hilarious, all at the same time.
You’ll notice I used bullet points, because of how perspicacious all that is.
Tin Soldier? I used to know how to mix that.
um, interesting side note, SBP, I went to johnmccain.com and did a search for Afghanistan and that didn’t come up.
Yeah, the built-in search engines on most sites suck ass. I tend to add a Google search box on sites that I build just for that reason.
yes, and it would be even more believable if you could add some ALL CAPS. but you’ll probably have to get prior approval from BJTexs.
“I posted Google search results to show that McCain not only has a page, but multiple pages on every single one of these issues.”
Really? I invite everyone to click on the “faith” link you provided. Go ahead, take a look at all those issues pages! “Buy ‘Faith of my Fathers’ today!” Why do I get the impression that, if you have no idea what you’re linking to, then you were probably being dishonest when you said that “The same is true for all the others”?
“At this stage, you’re only making yourself look more foolish than you already do.”
I appreciate the tip.
sure. I prefer my conspiracy theory about how I clicked the “undecided” button for my “edition”, hence, NO PLANS FOR ME!!!!
“Yeah, the built-in search engines on most sites suck ass.”
This is almost certainly intentional. Campaign teams don’t want people to be able to search around and find contradictions with regards to issues, particularly right after primary season when everyone’s been lying to their bases.
Really? I invite everyone to click on the “faith†link you provided. Go ahead, take a look at all those issues pages!
Spin away, Barrett.
You. Were. Wrong.
Badly, laughably, humiliatingly wrong.
Hey nutroots:
“Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Iraq, where Obama tells Newsweek that the size any residual US force will be “entirely conditions-based.â€Â
You might want to put some ice on that…
Meet the old boss, etc.
Except that Obama is safely removed from acting in any way shape or form that would benefit the national interest. Gotta understand America, have to believe in democracy, have to have a clue… none of which the O! seems to have going for him.
Why do I get the impression that, if you have no idea what you’re linking to, then you were probably being dishonest
There’s a laugh.
SBP, you’re missing the point, people like BBrown need LABELS! CLEAR! READABLE! LABLES!!!! DON’T EXPECT THEM TO HUNT FOR SHIT! GAH!
and it DAMN WELL better be on the home page in a drop down menu!
The page is entitled “John McCain’s Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan†and gives details. Post a link to a similar page on Obama’s site or STFU.
Oh, and Barrett? We’re still waiting.
This is almost certainly intentional. Campaign teams don’t want people to be able to search around and find contradictions with regards to issues, particularly right after primary season when everyone’s been lying to their bases.
Oh, you mean like how team Obamessiah scrubbed His Holy Site of any surge criticism?
O! doesn’t really ‘say’ anything. His 1,000 deep, bus fodder staff does.
I noticed Susan Rice went under the bus, pulled an Indiana Jones, slid smoothly, lashed her whip to the axle, and has clibmed back aboard.
I doubt O! would unzip his pants to piss* without a thumbs up from his whiz kids.
*Ok, 70/30 chance Obama sits down to piss and Olberman shakes it for him, but I stand by the comment.
Shoot. Yup, maggie. You’re right. Today more than most I feel like I’m trying to say things that Jeff could say so much better. He’s really remarkable like that. When I got here was the tail end of his sustained bloggings, which, I can only say that now cause of his goodbye. I was always hopeful he’d come back. Barrett is amiable enough I guess but he’s kind of tedious. Not datadave person tedious. Tedious in a new way. He’s very undergrad about everything. He wants for some nurturing I think. You go first.
I prefer the term weaselly. you can just see his little whiskers twitch. There, that’s better now isn’t it.
*sorry, I’m coming up on mile 9 so I’m a bit pumped. W007!
hf: He’s very undergrad about everything.
maggie: I prefer the term weaselly.
Those aren’t really mutually exclusive. He writes like a freshman bullshitting his way through an essay question, hoping that the instructor won’t realize that he hasn’t read anything all semester.
There are departments, and, indeed, entire disciplines, where that strategy might work, but it won’t fly here.
There is also the creeping nannystatism of so many “issue” papers and positions. Personally, I’d like to see more focus on a few things that matter and less on diminishing returns stuff like banning transfats and cigarettes and whether you can burn wood in your bar-b-que cooker. You know, less government. Not more. Get out of the way you stupid government people.
“Oh, and Barrett? We’re still waiting.”
I will navigate through Obama’s god-awful page in hopes of finding a press release on Afghanistan, and if I cannot find one, I give you my word that I will return here and concede the argument. I will say, “I was wrong to assume that Obama had such a press release on his website, and you were right to assume that he didn’t. In the future, I will be more careful with my arguments.”
But this doesn’t constitute a contract unless there is some consideration, of course. So, will you go to that “faith” link of yours and tell me which one is McCain’s “Faith” issue page that you claim to have very carefully proven to exist? Please advise.
Like drill for oil, motherfuckers, what are you waiting for, the total collapse of the economy to come, a la New Orleans and it’s crappy levies because it’s built BELOW sea level?
please, Barrett, like any Republican needs to shore up his FAITH bona fides. Why don’t I just ask you where Obama’s RAISING TAXES page is.
So, will you go to that “faith†link of yours and tell me which one is McCain’s “Faith†issue page that you claim to have very carefully proven to exist?
Next.
You might want to give up now, Barrett. Not only did your attempt to change the subject fail, but you got pwned on your half-assed spin attempt as well
Good lord, BB
I think this one of the many is pretty explicit.
BB
In view of your allusions to atheism in another thread, do you have problems with people who promote objective values?
Like drill for oil, motherfucker… you could also note here just for giggles that Pakistan is a crude-importing country. Oil prices really damage economic development there. Economic development helps tribal people be less tribal. It’s a proven fact. Developing our oil resources and holding down prices would have a real tangential effect on our friend Pakistan, and elsewhere. For real, the world will at some point ask why the fuck we bid up the price of oil instead of using our own. You won’t hear that on NPR though.
“You might want to give up now, Barrett. Not only did your attempt to change the subject fail, but you got pwned on your half-assed spin attempt as well.”
Oh, shit, you got me –
Wait a second, you rascal! That’s not an issues page, but rather a excerpt from an article by the Christian Science Monitor! I didn’t know that articles on the subject of the candidate’s views on a topic constituted issues pages, but, since they apparently do, go here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog
… and type “Afghanistan” into your little search bar! Oh, look! “Issues pages!” And how many other big articles by various publications do you think I could locate on Obama’s page in which Obama’s views on a topic may be located and designated as “issues pages” just as you’ve tried to do? More than one, I would think?
“BB In view of your allusions to atheism in another thread, do you have problems with people who promote objective values?”
Short answer, no. Long answer involves my suspicion of people who get those objective values by means which I consider to be illogical, like one’s inherited religion (and, to a lesser extent, one’s chosen religion).
My favorite is exploring Baracky’s website. The issues page are importantest, cause that’s where they get the stuff for the teleprompter.
Oh, shit, you got me
Yes, I did. You tried to drag the conversation off on a side issue and got called on it.
More than one, I would think?
Hint: what you “think” doesn’t count.
Provide a link to a page detailing Obama’s planned strategy for Afghanistan or admit that you were wrong.
Thanks.
Provide a link to a page detailing Obama’s planned strategy for Afghanistan or admit that you were wrong.
So much for “honesty” and “I give you my word that I will return here and concede the argument.”
Faugh.
Again you are right hf on the NPR. But I remind you that I do not listen to the NPR. For knowledge of what they do and say, I count on you. Terrible burden, but if I am to remain informed, there you have it.
“Provide a link to a page detailing Obama’s planned strategy for Afghanistan or admit that you were wrong.”
Provide a link to a page detailing McCain’s position on faith or admit that you were wrong. Oh, hey, look, we’re all making ultimatums now!
I see that you’re not even attempting to defend your very lame attempt to pass an article excerpt off as an “issues page” and that you likewise do not seem inclined to try to explain how you get to try to pass off such an article excerpt as an “issues page” while not allowing me the same privilege with regards to an article excerpt on Obama and Afghanistan. Additionally, you are simultaneously trying to write me off as evoking a freshman in college while at the same time spending a beautiful day trying to show me up, all the while claiming that the very issue we’ve been debating for an hour is actually a “side issue,” so I’m going to go be productive for a little while and will catch you later when you’re in a better mood or have at least learned to communicate in an honest way, whichever comes first.
Nice sentence structure Barrett. Check plus plus!
I see that you’re not even attempting to defend your very lame attempt to pass an article excerpt off as an “issues pageâ€Â
Translation: you can’t do it, and your “word” is worth exactly nothing.
Have a nice day, Barrett.
Thanks for playing, Barrett.
Issue pages are kind of like inherited religious sources, only with worse provenance. Who knows who wrote that crap and what they have a mind to do with it?
But, I gave you that link to those Obama Afghanistan issues pages! Do you not think that they constitute issues pages? If not, please say so now, and you will get my apology.
just go outside and play now, Barrett. that’s a good boy!
BB
I gave you a link to a page on McCain’s site on a speech he gave to Value Voters Summit…it is about his own faith journey. What are you looking for if not that?
Long answer involves my suspicion of people who get those objective values by means which I consider to be illogical, like one’s inherited religion (and, to a lesser extent, one’s chosen religion).
Now see, I don’t really care where someone gets their values. I just care what those values are and if they are really part of the person’s behavior who is claiming them.
I am only interested in “where” they came from where it also affects a person’s behavior.
“I gave you a link to a page on McCain’s site on a speech he gave to Value Voters Summit…it is about his own faith journey. What are you looking for if not that?”
Policy details.
“Now see, I don’t really care where someone gets their values. I just care what those values are and if they are really part of the person’s behavior who is claiming them.
I am only interested in “where†they came from where it also affects a person’s behavior.”
I basically agree with you in the sense that I don’t care if someone’s logic is bad as long as their behavior is compatible with a free society, which I think is what you’re saying here.
“just go outside and play now, Barrett.”
A fine idea, Ms. Katzen!
Policy details …. on Faith???
Isn’t the huge panty-wedge the Left has with the non-Left is having the government involved in anything to do with faith?
excuse me,
Holy Mary Mother of God!!
BB
You can claim that religion, faith and values are “illogical” but that doesn’t make it so.
You find any kind of “design” in nature “illogical”. But you need to add reason to that logic. Logic is a but a mere method, a tool.
Use it, don’t be one.
Doesn’t that faith-values thing take us to a TUCC place we really don’t want to go? I mean for Michelle’s kids and their fruit and all?
I kinda missed the point about how the presence or absence of web pages on McCain’s web site has squat to do with the presence or absence of web pages on Obama’s web site.
Telling me how bad McCain is doesn’t tell me how good Obama is.
Has anyone asked Sen. Obama what the administration’s dealings with India might have to do with the conditions in Pakistan?
Hello! Talk about counter-weight in the region! Hello, Sen. Obama! We can’t get to Afghanistan but through Pakistan, but with India in our corner we have additional leverage on Pakistan. Being a Friend of Sam has benefits; being an Enemy of Sam has detriments.
Kipling’s World.
#17 – A Petraeus or a Smedley Butler. The Marines seem to have some about still (Gen. Mattis).
Oh, and for the trolls – if you can still try to tell everyone how fighting in Afghanistan is the same as the Marines’ early 20th century fights in the Carribbean and Central America, go right ahead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-QFwFpi48&NR=1 Keep watching until the replay.
Flicking backhanded shots leaves your ribs open.
Shouldn’t you be validating your life by writing your next chapter? Or have you gone AWOL from the community book writing brigade?
Finish it! Obama did.
You. Were. Wrong.
Badly, laughably, humiliatingly wrong.
Like ‘pants fall down around your ankles on the dance floor’ wrong.
thor – you have never added anything to the discussion other than an early 1970’s Times Square vibe; and that really isn’t anything but an acknowledgment of a sewer-line problem.
So the surge was wrong for Iraq according to the Obamanation, and really didn’t help things (see his laundry list) and he wouldn’t even with or without 20/20 hindsight change the way he voted against the surge and against funding the Iraq War in 2007; BUT a SURGE is OK for Afghanistan and more troops will lead to better conditions. THis seems to be the democraps mindset on drilling too. More Drilling won’t help, but release precious supplies in the Strategic Reserve to lower prices. The democraps have very strange notions of supply and demand and military tactics and strategy.
Flicking backhanded shots leaves your ribs open.
I don’t think anyone has ever been knocked out by some bum flipping peanuts from the cheap seats.
Problem is I smack back. That’s irksome, evidently, to ya Mikey.
Eclectic joys of the irksome voice, makes you pause and wonder. We can all go back to playing asteroids.
Jeff hates my rhymes.
I think Jeff should post his picks of the worst posts of PW.
Surely I’ve earned a top spot.
Problem is I smack back. That’s irksome, evidently, to ya Mikey.
Rhetorical spitwads. You are the blog equivalent of a dog-pecker gnat. Irksome, but ultimately inconsequential.
Dog-pecker gnat? But I’ve been trying to fashion my blogsonality after the freshwater candiru.
thor,
Keep it up. You’re hopping on the express out of town.
When the yes-men tear up and lash out at the revving machines you know you left a mark.
Choo, choo!
McCain remaining visible is the problem. Everytime the guy opens his mouth, he gets confused and causes more problems for himself. Can’t remember what his position was, isn’t interested in cultural issues, etc. Seems like the best strategy right now would be for him to stay invisible and hope that Obama does something really stupid.
I think you’re getting him confused with Obama, drill.
#146
Sadly, no. It’s become apparent that we were never in any real danger of you being clever.