Obama still ducking townhall debates

[ajmccarrell]

For those of you who think that McCain isn't trying to engage Obama on the issues:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debates

[greatdarkwing]

Obama's kryptonite is debating. If he can not overcome this, he will lose in November.

[strandinthewind]

Obama is not that bad. He held his own, mostly, against Hillary, and she is far better than all three.

Also, McCain is not that great a debater :shrug:

Personally, I think the debates will be a snoozefest and mostly unnecessary in this race as I know no one who has not made up their minds :shrug:

As for the townhall debates brought uop in this thread, I think the three debates they already agreed to in the Fall are enough, esp. considering the foregoing reasons and that they are after the actual nomination, as opposed to the pre-nomination ones McCain discussed in the posted article.

But, the debate trick has been around for a long time and both sides usually play it at one time or another :shrug:

This is my own ignorance, but have any candidates in the past debated prior to obtaining the actual n0mination?

[Musicman408]

I'm looking forward to the debates. I'm ready for America to get a better picture of who really should win this thing. :nod:

[greatdarkwing]

I personally didn't think he held his own against Hilary. Shame too cause I would've voted for her. He just looks awkward when answering spur of the moment questions and trips himself up alot. I just saw him do it today. When he strays from his message he stumbles. I look forward to the first debate just to see how he holds up against McCain, who seems very at ease with these town hall q and a forums lately. McCain's recent speeches have all been q and forums and he seems to be getting much better at them.

[strandinthewind]

^^

I agree with you that Hillary was far better. But, he had his moments. The one I thought he lloked the most arrogant in was the "You're likeable enough Hillary" line. She is his senior and the former First Lady. To address her in that tone and by her Christian name was rude. Yet, like most things, that fact alluded the masses. GO figure.

Again, the only reason I likely will vote for Obama is that I think McCain will be four more years of Bush, which I think is bad for us. I totally get, though, the Obama faults and recognize it is not an easy sell.

[ajmccarrell]

^^

I agree with you that Hillary was far better. But, he had his moments. The one I thought he lloked the most arrogant in was the "You're likeable enough Hillary" line. She is his senior and the former First Lady. To address her in that tone and by her Christian name was rude. Yet, like most things, that fact alluded the masses. GO figure.

Again, the only reason I likely will vote for Obama is that I think McCain will be four more years of Bush, which I think is bad for us. I totally get, though, the Obama faults and recognize it is not an easy sell.

Personally, I would have preferred Fred Thompson and I think, like a lot of conservatives, that were going to get "Arthur Branch" on the campaign trail, the tough guy D.A. from Law & Order that always has a snappy comeback in a slow calming drawl. Instead, we got the real Fred Thompson, who happens to be boring as hell. He nailed the South Carolina debate, but it was too late after he snoozed through the others. :shrug:

The biggest difference I see between McCain and Obama is that McCain understands where his shortcomings are and he freely acknowledges them, Obama is way too confident despite not really having any national experience. He presents himself like the world's foremost expert on everything and is dead certain before he ends up changing his mind anyway, while pretending he never really held the former position. My 2nd year Accounting professor had a plaque on his wall that read, "education is man's journey from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty". I think truer words are rarely spoken.

[gldstwmn]

I don't recall Bush doing any town hall debates during his campaign. :shrug: In fact, we rarely saw him in the beginning of his presidency. Those are a dog and pony show anyway, with a selcted audience of people.
Perhaps Obama's security people don't feel it's a wise thing for him to do.

[Musicman408]

^^

I agree with you that Hillary was far better. But, he had his moments. The one I thought he lloked the most arrogant in was the "You're likeable enough Hillary" line. She is his senior and the former First Lady. To address her in that tone and by her Christian name was rude. Yet, like most things, that fact alluded the masses. GO figure.

Again, the only reason I likely will vote for Obama is that I think McCain will be four more years of Bush, which I think is bad for us. I totally get, though, the Obama faults and recognize it is not an easy sell.

Yeah, I definately liked Hillary more than Obama, but what can you do now, right? Gotta learn to move on, and knowing that we need a Democrat, I've got to vote for Obama.

[chiliD]

Yeah, I definately liked Hillary more than Obama, but what can you do now, right? Gotta learn to move on, and knowing that we need a Democrat, I've got to vote for Obama.

Not so much that we "need a Democrat", we just DON'T need Republicans, ever, EVER, EVER!!!! In the past 30 years that party has become neo-facist.

[ajmccarrell]

Not so much that we "need a Democrat", we just DON'T need Republicans, ever, EVER, EVER!!!! In the past 30 years that party has become neo-facist.

LOL! Do you support universal health care? If so, that is fascist by definition. I think you don't know what fascist actually means, nor do you have a basic grasp on history.

Lincoln's actions under the civil war when he suspended habeas corpus rights and even deported disloyal senators was vasty more far reaching than Bush. How about Roosevelt's executive order to round up the Japanese citizens? That was a lot more far reaching. Bush actually got congressional approval to suspend habeas corpus. Roosevelt and Lincoln never did. John Adams also had locked up a journalist that slandered Jefferson. Is Bush clumsy? Certainly! Does he have more power than other presidents in history? No!

[strandinthewind]

LOL! Do you support universal health care? If so, that is fascist by definition. I think you don't know what fascist actually means, nor do you have a basic grasp on history.

Lincoln's actions under the civil war when he suspended habeas corpus rights and even deported disloyal senators was vasty more far reaching than Bush. How about Roosevelt's executive order to round up the Japanese citizens? That was a lot more far reaching. Bush actually got congressional approval to suspend habeas corpus. Roosevelt and Lincoln never did. John Adams also had locked up a journalist that slandered Jefferson. Is Bush clumsy? Certainly! Does he have more power than other presidents in history? No!

So, lying to get us into a war we did not have to fight is now called clumsy :rolleyes:

But, once again, you point to other peoples' behavious in an attempt to lessen the one being talked about. What were those logic lessons you were talking about earlier?

[ajmccarrell]

I don't recall Bush doing any town hall debates during his campaign. :shrug: In fact, we rarely saw him in the beginning of his presidency. Those are a dog and pony show anyway, with a selcted audience of people.
Perhaps Obama's security people don't feel it's a wise thing for him to do.

I didn't much like that either. I like what McCain is doing. Mike Huckabee did it too. Too often campaigns are too staged. I think the reason Obama doesn't do it is because he doesn't do well without a teleprompter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hMyRGRD3rM

I think the form of the video is disrespectful, but it shows what happens when Obama doesn't have his cue cards. There was one speech that Limbaugh played where he stuttered clear through the commercial break for a full ten minutes of rambling stutters.

[ajmccarrell]

So, lying to get us into a war we did not have to fight is now called clumsy :rolleyes:

LOL! Oh, the "lie" thing again. LOL! What a joke! The Russians, Clinton, the French, and many other countries also believed the intelligence. Bush had REALLY bad information. A "lie" mandates intent. He made a grievous error, but it was certainly not deliberate. I love this "lie" business. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/23/actually-bush-didnt-lie/ Even this left wing reporter doesn't buy it.

[strandinthewind]

LOL! Oh, the "lie" thing again. LOL! What a joke! The Russians, Clinton, the French, and many other countries also believed the intelligence. Bush had REALLY bad information. A "lie" mandates intent. He made a grievous error, but it was certainly not deliberate. I love this "lie" business. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/23/actually-bush-didnt-lie/ Even this left wing reporter doesn't buy it.

No, Bush and his admin. were told that the yellow cake into a nuclear bomb info. was completely inaccurate and they chose to use it anyway. They could not have sold the war without the exigency need and that was it.

Pay attention :wavey:

[ajmccarrell]

No, Bush and his admin. were told that the yellow cake into a nuclear bomb info. was completely inaccurate and they chose to use it anyway. They could not have sold the war without the exigency need and that was it.

Pay attention :wavey:

You pay attention to something besides liberal conspiracy sites. It's kind of hard to move Yellow Cake that according to you didn't exist?!

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080706_Iraq_s_nuclear__yellowcake__moved_to_Canada.html

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040714/ai_n14581562

http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/07/09/the-550-tons-of-yellowcake//

http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/27509/550-Metric-Tons-Of-Proof-That-Bush-Did-Not-Lie/

[strandinthewind]

SH got that yellowcake from Niger?

W knew about that in the SOU speech?

Again, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

[ajmccarrell]

SH got that yellowcake from Niger?

W knew about that in the SOU speech?

Again, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

Which is a world of difference away from being a "lie". It was a mistake as has already been said.

[strandinthewind]

Which is a world of difference away from being a "lie". It was a mistake as has already been said.

You actually expect Rove to let W admit it was a lie :laugh:

What I find hysterical is you never blame W. Everyone is wrong but W. He can do no wrong and when he does and faces allegations by numerous other people who were there, they are all wrong and W is merely clumsy - come one.

Put it this way, if your employee made such a drastic and clumsy mistake, would you fire them or would you say, gee all my customers are pissed and you have made me bankrupt, but that's okay, I forgive you?

[ajmccarrell]

You actually expect Rove to let W admit it was a lie :laugh:

What I find hysterical is you never blame W. Everyone is wrong but W. He can do no wrong and when he does and faces allegations by numerous other people who were there, they are all wrong and W is merely clumsy - come one.

Put it this way, if your employee made such a drastic and clumsy mistake, would you fire them or would you say, gee all my customers are pissed and you have made me bankrupt, but that's okay, I forgive you?

Good lord you are dense! I did blame him. I said he made a mistake. I just said he didn't lie on purpose. Whether or not it was true is irrelevent. Whether or not he believed it was is the issue. Worst case, it is debatable. It is far from proven. You haven't named any people or made any argument that wasn't supposition from some lefty blog somewhere on the fringes of humanity. I believe in giving blame where blame is due, no more, no less. I don't believe, as you do, in imputing ill motives to everyone and anyone who makes a mistake that isn't a democrat. You can't prove a negative, unless you are Bush or conservative, then you are expected to in your world.

[strandinthewind]

Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003

Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road

Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim — merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that "I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."

While the Bush administration may have been sweating, just a little during the past two months, over the absence of WMD finds in Iraq, a majority of Americans appear willing to believe that going to war was justified even if no such weapons are ever found. Across the Atlantic, however, Bush's closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being roasted daily by Britain's media and legislature, some of the fiercest attacks coming from within his own party. Just this week, a parliamentary inquiry exonerated Blair's government on the charge that it "sexed up" intelligence reports to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam's regime, but nonetheless remained deeply skeptical of the case made by Blair for going to war.

The fact that Blair's and Bush's governments face parallel but separate inquires from their own legislatures operates, in some ways, like the police tactic of interrogating suspects separately in the hope of finding discrepancies in their testimony. The U.S., for example, started a lot earlier than the British conceding that actual weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. British officials were apoplectic some weeks ago when the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggested Saddam may have destroyed his banned weapons before the invasion. Blair, after all, has stuck by the promise that WMD will be found in Iraq — at least until this week, when he began the subtle migration to a claim that the coalition may only find evidence that Iraq had maintained weapons programs rather than any actual weapons.

Blair, moreover, appears to be sticking by the Niger uranium allegation despite the White House retraction, insisting that it was based on sources besides the forged letters. U.S. officials had hinted, also, that other sources had pointed to Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Africa, but that none of these leads was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech.

Hardly surprisingly, the Democrats are demanding an inquiry. The surging support for antiwar Vermont governor Howard Dean in the Democratic nomination race signals deep discomfort among the party's core supporters over the war, and some of those who voted for the war may be inclined to use the presence of fake intelligence in President Bush's case for war to back away from their own support for the invasion. Still, they may have plenty to work with, because there's plenty of evidence emerging to challenge the White House assertion that it was not informed, before the State of the Union speech, that the Niger claim had been debunked by U.S. intelligence.

Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it. Ambassador Joseph Wilson emphasized that he had reported back through traditional channels, and asked whether his report had been ignored because it didn't fit with the administration's preconceptions about Iraq.

More troubling questions arise from the claim by IAEA chief Dr Mohammed el-Baradei, who was in charge of the nuclear component of the prewar UN inspection program in Iraq, that he was provided with the Niger "evidence" only in February, despite it having been shared on Capitol Hill the previous October. The U.S. and Britain were publicly committed to sharing intelligence with the UN inspectors in order to help them find a "smoking gun," yet el-Baradei was kept in the dark about evidence that was ostensibly directly relevant to his inquiry. And, of course, almost as soon as he was shown the Niger documents, el-Baradei and his team concluded that they were forgeries. Also, despite U.S. and British claims that "other sources" had indicated Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa, el-Baradei stresses that the Niger forgeries were the only evidence offered to the investigators.

Even more damning are reports that CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. If those prove true, it kicks the jams out from under the administration's claim that the presence of a falsehood in the President's case against Iraq was simply the product of ignorance. And it may be expected that the CIA will more and more sharply signal that it passed its findings up the food chain, because on the basis of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, they'd be left to take the blame if they didn't. Then again, the media may turn its attention to the role of the Vice President's office: After all, Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney's office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson's findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information.

And right now, the game in Washington is to pin the blame for the fact that a fib, conscious or unconscious, made it into the State of the Union address. And in a summer news trough, that's bad news for the White House.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...463779,00.html

from http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=36470&highlight=wilson&page=4

[ajmccarrell]

You do realize that there is a difference between an op-ed column and actual news right? Opinion and fact are two different things. :wavey:

[vermicious knid]

Bush's people would leak false information to the New York Times, and then Dick Cheney would go on Meet the Press and say "Look, it's in the New York Times, it must be true!"

[JWS]

Yeah, I definately liked Hillary more than Obama, but what can you do now, right? Gotta learn to move on, and knowing that we need a Democrat, I've got to vote for Obama.

Are you old enough to vote?

[gldstwmn]

LOL! Do you support universal health care? If so, that is fascist by definition. I think you don't know what fascist actually means, nor do you have a basic grasp on history.



I don't think YOU know what fascisim is. So why don't you explain your point on Universal Healthcare instead of being a condescending jackass?

[ajmccarrell]

Bush's people would leak false information to the New York Times, and then Dick Cheney would go on Meet the Press and say "Look, it's in the New York Times, it must be true!"

Based on what?! Your say-so?

So you are accusing the hyperliberal NY Times, who won't even publish McCain's own op-ed piece of being a shill for Bush administration on no evidence whatsoever and you would like to be taken seriously. :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

I don't think YOU know what fascisim is. So why don't you explain your point on Universal Healthcare instead of being a condescending jackass?

According to wikipedia, "Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that holds traditionalist notions of reversing cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting most commonly the nation state, but sometimes the race, and which promotes unity, strength and cultural renewal."

So, using the authority of the government to takeover a private industry for "cultural renewal" and "unity" and "change" is the VERY definition of fascism. Everything in that first paragraph, including using the race card, is EXACTLY everything Obama says. Michelle Obama says "eschew Middle-Classness", IE avoid "decadence". Obama seeks to use the power of the government to "unite". If you are not terrfied of this man, you don't have a concept of history.

How about this one, "Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence. — Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology"

So, the Obama playbook of "profits are too high", you're being "screwed by the corporations", "elect me and I will use the power of government for 'change'", "I work across the isle" That is nothing but fascist sloganeering. His church-like following is liturgical politics. His, "you will have an epiphany" speech is just exactly what fascism is. The reason the young people are so capitvated by this guy is because he IS new to America. We've never seen an old-style European fascist in this country before.

Why should I look up terms for you that you don't understand and explain them for you? That's not being condescending, that is expecting the person that you are having a debate with to have a basic grasp on the historical context of what they are saying. Basically, you don't like Bush and say he's fascist because you heard someone else say it and you thought it sounded good. Right? Bush has problems, certainly. Fascism isn't one of them.

[strandinthewind]

^^

Once again, you display a thorough misunderstanding of what you are talking about. Then again, you thought the R's pushed the Civil Rights legislation through Congress and W doesn't lie (apparently ever).

BTW - what are the 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. This may be a good place for you to start your edification.

[gldstwmn]

According to wikipedia, "Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that holds traditionalist notions of reversing cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting most commonly the nation state, but sometimes the race, and which promotes unity, strength and cultural renewal."

So, using the authority of the government to takeover a private industry for "cultural renewal" and "unity" and "change" is the VERY definition of fascism. Everything in that first paragraph, including using the race card, is EXACTLY everything Obama says. Michelle Obama says "eschew Middle-Classness", IE avoid "decadence". Obama seeks to use the power of the government to "unite". If you are not terrfied of this man, you don't have a concept of history.

How about this one, "Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence. — Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology"

So, the Obama playbook of "profits are too high", you're being "screwed by the corporations", "elect me and I will use the power of government for 'change'", "I work across the isle" That is nothing but fascist sloganeering. His church-like following is liturgical politics. His, "you will have an epiphany" speech is just exactly what fascism is. The reason the young people are so capitvated by this guy is because he IS new to America. We've never seen an old-style European fascist in this country before.

Why should I look up terms for you that you don't understand and explain them for you? That's not being condescending, that is expecting the person that you are having a debate with to have a basic grasp on the historical context of what they are saying. Basically, you don't like Bush and say he's fascist because you heard someone else say it and you thought it sounded good. Right? Bush has problems, certainly. Fascism isn't one of them.


And you're no closer to a point on fascism with regards to Universal Health Care than you were two posts ago. I still don't know WTF your point is. I don't think you do either.

[KarmaContestant]

So, using the authority of the government to takeover a private industry for "cultural renewal" and "unity" and "change" is the VERY definition of fascism. Everything in that first paragraph, including using the race card, is EXACTLY everything Obama says. Michelle Obama says "eschew Middle-Classness", IE avoid "decadence". Obama seeks to use the power of the government to "unite". If you are not terrfied of this man, you don't have a concept of history.



You have no idea what you're even talking about. Why don't you provide your own definitions to support your claims instead of relying on wikipedia and conservative blogs? Where is your voice?

The concept of universal heathcare has nothing to do with fascism. There is no plot to 'take over' the health care industry. That's not what proponents of universal healthcare in America are looking for.

It's really simple - so simple that you probably won't even grasp it: those of us who support universal healthcare are only looking for medical insurance that is government provided and available to everyone regardless of one's economic standing or health condition. If you want United Healthcare, or Cigna or Aetna - that's your right, but there should be another option that is a guarantee for everyone at fair and equal rates for everyone. There is nothing fascist about that, but I can easily see how those who profit from greed would be fearfully opposed to something that might level the playing field.

In our modern world there is no reason whatsoever that every person should not have access to medical care and prescription drugs. Currently this isn't the case even in America. We have a duty as Citizens to provide for one another, and let me point out something: if you are so opposed to a national healthcare program, should I also assume that you are opposed to police departments, libraries, fire departments, public schools, military - would you prefer that we do away with all of those social institutions?

[strandinthewind]

And you're no closer to a point on fascism with regards to Universal Health Care than you were two posts ago. I still don't know WTF your point is. I don't think you do either.

Perhaps it is because the poster boys for fascism, Mussolini and Hitler, were all about providing universal health care to the chagrain of private industry :rolleyes:

Moreover, had he bothered to read the entire wikipedia article (note -- he shunned the use of wikipedia earlier because anyone could have written it) -- he would have realized that a Federal universal health care bill hardly meets the core tenets of fascism, much less Obama's plan seen here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ -- which mostly maintains the private sector :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You have no idea what you're even talking about. Why don't you provide your own definitions to support your claims instead of relying on wikipedia and conservative blogs? Where is your voice?

The concept of universal heathcare has nothing to do with fascism. There is no plot to 'take over' the health care industry. That's not what proponents of universal healthcare in America are looking for.

It's really simple - so simple that you probably won't even grasp it: those of us who support universal healthcare are only looking for medical insurance that is government provided and available to everyone regardless of one's economic standing or health condition. If you want United Healthcare, or Cigna or Aetna - that's your right, but there should be another option that is a guarantee for everyone at fair and equal rates for everyone. There is nothing fascist about that, but I can easily see how those who profit from greed would be fearfully opposed to something that might level the playing field.

In our modern world there is no reason whatsoever that every person should not have access to medical care and prescription drugs. Currently this isn't the case even in America. We have a duty as Citizens to provide for one another, and let me point out something: if you are so opposed to a national healthcare program, how can you possibly be in support of police departments, libraries, fire departments, public schools, military - or would you prefer that we do away with all of those social institutions?


Okay - so I typed this much longer version of this, but it got deleted by my cursed computer :laugh:

So, ditto.

Mind you - - I think people confuse the phrase "universal health care" with their concept of "socialized medicine," which is different. And, many studies indicate a universal health care system would be less expensive in the long run. I, too, am afraid of letting the govt. take control of an entire industry (TSA anyone :eek: ) -- but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans. Moreover, John McCain "believes we can and must provide access to health care for every American" and his plan uses govt. influence and money to acheive that goal (is that fascism too? ). See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm Finally, we are already paying for some form of universal health care. So, why not make it better?

[vermicious knid]

Based on what?! Your say-so?

So you are accusing the hyperliberal NY Times, who won't even publish McCain's own op-ed piece of being a shill for Bush administration on no evidence whatsoever and you would like to be taken seriously. :shrug:
That's a funny way of asking for more information. I would think you would ask for a link or a source that I had before presuming I was making things up. People here are willing to debate issues, but when you call people "dense" and imply that they are lying at the first mention of something you haven't heard before, you make yourself look like someone not worth debating with.

Anyway, what I was referring to was the idea that Iraq had aluminum tubes that would have been used to make nuclear bombs.
link (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june04/nytimes_05-26.html)
A Sept. 8, 2002, account [in the New York Times], written by [Judith] Miller and military reporter Michael Gordon, dealt with aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq, allegedly for its nuclear weapons program. That same Sunday, the vice president appeared on NBC's Meet the Press, and pointed to the article, which relied heavily on administration officials, as proof positive of Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

Judith Miller was the reporter who went to jail rather than testify on the crimes of Bush's people, so it isn't like that newspaper is filled with radical left-wing enemies of Republicans. It ran many stories that convinced people that the war was a good idea. Only Knight Ridder newspapers sufficiently investigated what George Bush was selling.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Not only that, but the NY Times did not just refuse to publish McCain's opt ed (note they published seven of his other opt eds in the past) as he would have you believe. Rather, the Grey Lady merely asked McCain to say something new and to define what he meant, which McCain apparently has refused to do - to wit:

July 21, 2008, 6:19 pm

The Times and the McCain Op-Ed

By Kate Phillips

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.
Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year.

On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. Obama: “I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it… if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.”

Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,
David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:
It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.
That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

[ajmccarrell]

And you're no closer to a point on fascism with regards to Universal Health Care than you were two posts ago. I still don't know WTF your point is. I don't think you do either.

Perhaps English is a bit esoteric for you. If you nationalize an industry under the guise of "sticking it to the rich for the little guy" that is a distillation of what the article on fascism is. The very idea of nationalizing provate corporations is inherently fascist. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

Not only that, but the NY Times did not just refuse to publish McCain's opt ed (note they published seven of his other opt eds in the past) as he would have you believe. Rather, the Grey Lady merely asked McCain to say something new and to define what he meant, which McCain apparently has refused to do - to wit:

July 21, 2008, 6:19 pm

The Times and the McCain Op-Ed

By Kate Phillips

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.
Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year.

On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. Obama: “I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it… if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.”

Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,
David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:
It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.
That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

#1. This has never happened before

#2. If you READ McCain's article you would see he was VERY clear.

#3. If you read Obama's article, you would see it bears no resemblance to what this guy represented it as being.

#4. It appears to me that the editor is dictating to McCain what he can and can not write about.

[strandinthewind]

Perhaps English is a bit esoteric for you. If you nationalize an industry under the guise of "sticking it to the rich for the little guy" that is a distillation of what the article on fascism is. The very idea of nationalizing provate corporations is inherently fascist. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

No, you are wrong. Fascism is wildly more complicated than that.

[strandinthewind]

#1. This has never happened before

#2. If you READ McCain's article you would see he was VERY clear.

#3. If you read Obama's article, you would see it bears no resemblance to what this guy represented it as being.

#4. It appears to me that the editor is dictating to McCain what he can and can not write about.

So, the opt ed's are never sent back for more info. or other reasons. Please be specific as to how you know this as a fact. And, here is allegedly what McCain sent:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
___________________________________________________________

Please quote the relevant parts where he was specific regarding how he defined winning the Iraq war because "I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies" is a restatement :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

Okay - so I typed this much longer version of this, but it got deleted by my cursed computer :laugh:

So, ditto.

Mind you - - I think people confuse the phrase "universal health care" with their concept of "socialized medicine," which is different. And, many studies indicate a universal health care system would be less expensive in the long run. I, too, am afraid of letting the govt. take control of an entire industry (TSA anyone :eek: ) -- but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans. Moreover, John McCain "believes we can and must provide access to health care for every American" and his plan uses govt. influence and money to acheive that goal (is that fascism too? ). See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm Finally, we are already paying for some form of universal health care. So, why not make it better?

The problem with making it universal is that Social Security as is is crippling us with debt. That is for one segment of the population. Imagine tryign to cover every man woman and child?! Also, has the government EVER done anything more efficiently than the private market?

You said, "but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans" The biggest universal plans of them all, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with fraud and waste. Can you really justify the costs of what the government has to pay to suppliers? I think I already mentioned the problems with wheelchair pads and canes. Unless the government takes over the suppliers too, you will give suppliers carte blanche to charge whatever they want, as they already do. This is what happens when you have a half-assed hybrid of market and government. Freddie Mac, Fannie May anyone? HELLLOOOOO!

John McCain says in his townhall meetings, if you ever bothered to listen to the guy, that his solution for bringing health care to every man, woman and child is by providing choice. Part of what makes medical insurance so expensive is that there are mandatory coverages according to the state. In Washington, acupunture and many other holistic coverages are mandatory. Pay over $800.00 a month for health insurance for my family because of this, as well as ridiculous punitive damages suits. Doctors are leaving Washington in droves because of malpractice insurance costs, thanks to guys like John Edwards. McCain's idea is to let families choose which coverage they want instead of having the government do it for you.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Here is a cool article explaining why the NY Times' rejection of the opt ed for clarification was not some left wing horror, which you said it was.

Right calls foul on rejection of McCain's Op-Ed

Conservative bloggers are outraged by the New York Times' rejection of John McCain's piece and, unsurprisingly, decry the media's liberal bias.

Vincent Rossmeier

Jul. 21, 2008 |

Thanks to a story on Drudge Report, the political blogosphere is all atwitter today with the news that the New York Times Op-Ed page rejected a guest column by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last week. This rejection came a few days after the Times printed a similar column by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

McCain's piece, which Drudge reprinted in full, attacked Obama's position on troop withdrawals from Iraq and lauded the success of the "surge." In the piece, McCain also stated that he expects "to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of [his] first term in office, in 2013."

In rejecting McCain's submission, New York Times Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he wasn't "going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," and explained his rationale by saying: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans ... It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

Right on cue, right-wing bloggers have reacted to Shipley's decision with outrage and allegations of liberal media bias. Little Green Footballs fumed that the Times refused McCain's article while running pieces by Yasser Arafat and members of Hamas in the past. The blog Gateway Pundit asked, sarcastically, "Media bias ... What media bias?" and, in citing the full text of McCain's article, continued, "Here's the editorial that The New York Times refused to publish. It is fantastic. It is a brilliant piece of writing that absolutely destroys Obama's phony attempts this week to look like a Commander in Chief ... Barack Obama is a war loser, plain and simple."

These heated protestations overlooked a number of fairly obvious factors relating to this story. For one, in his rejection e-mail, Shipley was friendly and repeatedly emphasized that he'd be "very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page" and offered to review another draft. In fact, the Times' Op-Ed page has printed submissions from McCain on several other occasions, including a piece in March 2003 titled "The Right War for the Right Reasons" in which the senator argued for the justness of the Iraq invasion.

The sticking point, to some degree, seemed to be Shipley's request that McCain define "victory" in the Op-Ed. That request poses obvious difficulties for McCain, who -- like other supporters of the war -- has been decidedly reluctant to be pinned down on a definition. If you really wanted to, you could claim that Shipley deliberately tried to corner McCain by including what was, in effect if not intention, a poison pill in his request for a rewrite. But such an attempt at policy explication hardly seems to constitute media bias. It's reasonable to expect politicians to be able to explain their positions.

Additionally, the Times' Op-Ed page endorsed McCain in the Republican primary. And if it hadn't, the page's point of view is not a secret, and is unrelated to the paper's news coverage. It seems odd that McCain would be so naive as to expect that the page wouldn't favor the Democratic candidate. Wouldn't it seem a little crazy for liberals to accuse the Wall Street Journal of bias because the paper refused to print a column penned by Obama?

But this sort of tactic may be McCain's most effective campaign strategy at this point. As Michael Scherer, a former Salon reporter, points out over at Time's Swampland blog, Republicans believe the campaign can't focus on McCain and his beliefs if McCain is to win the presidency. Citing a column this morning by Robert Novak, Scherer writes that McCain's best bet is to make the campaign about Obama, as he tried to do in the Op-Ed submitted to the Times.

In a statement, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

-- Vincent Rossmeier

www.salon.com

[ajmccarrell]

So, the opt ed's are never sent back for more info. or other reasons. Please be specific as to how you know this as a fact. And, here is allegedly what McCain sent:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
___________________________________________________________

Please quote the relevant parts where he was specific regarding how he defined winning the Iraq war because "I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies" is a restatement :shrug:

That is what Obama does, he speaks in vague generalities with terms no one can disagree with, because they are non-specific. I could say, "I have a plan for lowering health care costs for all Americans." No one can disagree with that statement. However, if my plan involves strafing every other house to reduce the population, we have a problem. Same with Obama. Most of his goals are great ones. It's his methodology that scares me. C.S. Lewis once said that evil is the act of obtaining the right objective the wrong way.

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

Here is a cool article explaining why the NY Times' rejection of the opt ed for clarification was not some left wing horror, which you said it was.

Right calls foul on rejection of McCain's Op-Ed

Conservative bloggers are outraged by the New York Times' rejection of John McCain's piece and, unsurprisingly, decry the media's liberal bias.

Vincent Rossmeier

Jul. 21, 2008 |

Thanks to a story on Drudge Report, the political blogosphere is all atwitter today with the news that the New York Times Op-Ed page rejected a guest column by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last week. This rejection came a few days after the Times printed a similar column by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

McCain's piece, which Drudge reprinted in full, attacked Obama's position on troop withdrawals from Iraq and lauded the success of the "surge." In the piece, McCain also stated that he expects "to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of [his] first term in office, in 2013."

In rejecting McCain's submission, New York Times Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he wasn't "going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," and explained his rationale by saying: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans ... It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

Right on cue, right-wing bloggers have reacted to Shipley's decision with outrage and allegations of liberal media bias. Little Green Footballs fumed that the Times refused McCain's article while running pieces by Yasser Arafat and members of Hamas in the past. The blog Gateway Pundit asked, sarcastically, "Media bias ... What media bias?" and, in citing the full text of McCain's article, continued, "Here's the editorial that The New York Times refused to publish. It is fantastic. It is a brilliant piece of writing that absolutely destroys Obama's phony attempts this week to look like a Commander in Chief ... Barack Obama is a war loser, plain and simple."

These heated protestations overlooked a number of fairly obvious factors relating to this story. For one, in his rejection e-mail, Shipley was friendly and repeatedly emphasized that he'd be "very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page" and offered to review another draft. In fact, the Times' Op-Ed page has printed submissions from McCain on several other occasions, including a piece in March 2003 titled "The Right War for the Right Reasons" in which the senator argued for the justness of the Iraq invasion.

The sticking point, to some degree, seemed to be Shipley's request that McCain define "victory" in the Op-Ed. That request poses obvious difficulties for McCain, who -- like other supporters of the war -- has been decidedly reluctant to be pinned down on a definition. If you really wanted to, you could claim that Shipley deliberately tried to corner McCain by including what was, in effect if not intention, a poison pill in his request for a rewrite. But such an attempt at policy explication hardly seems to constitute media bias. It's reasonable to expect politicians to be able to explain their positions.

Additionally, the Times' Op-Ed page endorsed McCain in the Republican primary. And if it hadn't, the page's point of view is not a secret, and is unrelated to the paper's news coverage. It seems odd that McCain would be so naive as to expect that the page wouldn't favor the Democratic candidate. Wouldn't it seem a little crazy for liberals to accuse the Wall Street Journal of bias because the paper refused to print a column penned by Obama?

But this sort of tactic may be McCain's most effective campaign strategy at this point. As Michael Scherer, a former Salon reporter, points out over at Time's Swampland blog, Republicans believe the campaign can't focus on McCain and his beliefs if McCain is to win the presidency. Citing a column this morning by Robert Novak, Scherer writes that McCain's best bet is to make the campaign about Obama, as he tried to do in the Op-Ed submitted to the Times.

In a statement, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

-- Vincent Rossmeier

www.salon.com

Again, this is op-ed, not fact, not news.

[strandinthewind]

The problem with making it universal is that Social Security as is is crippling us with debt. That is for one segment of the population. Imagine tryign to cover every man woman and child?! Also, has the government EVER done anything more efficiently than the private market?

You said, "but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans" The biggest universal plans of them all, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with fraud and waste. Can you really justify the costs of what the government has to pay to suppliers? I think I already mentioned the problems with wheelchair pads and canes. Unless the government takes over the suppliers too, you will give suppliers carte blanche to charge whatever they want, as they already do. This is what happens when you have a half-assed hybrid of market and government. Freddie Mac, Fannie May anyone? HELLLOOOOO!

John McCain says in his townhall meetings, if you ever bothered to listen to the guy, that his solution for bringing health care to every man, woman and child is by providing choice. Part of what makes medical insurance so expensive is that there are mandatory coverages according to the state. In Washington, acupunture and many other holistic coverages are mandatory. McCain's idea is to let families choose which coverage they want instead of having the government do it for you.

No -- McCain is for the govt. usurping some of the private aspects of health care, which is a pillar of universal health care, which you called fascist.

Also, please read the link above and you will see that Obama's plan is about the same type of choice.

[strandinthewind]

Again, this is op-ed, not fact, not news.

That is why I called it an "article" that "explained" an event.

It takes the facts and explains then in some context. I agree with this guy. You apparently do not because you apparently think the NY Times refused to publish McCain's opt ed and never had any intention of publishing it because the NY Times is a horribly liberal paper. No facts support your position, as this article explains.

Again, please explain how you know for sure the NY Times' intent. Moreover, please reconcile the published email from the editor that asks for more info. before publishing with your point of view. That, and the fact that the NY Times has published seven McCain opt eds before as well as the paper endorsed McCain for the R nominee.

[strandinthewind]

That is what Obama does, he speaks in vague generalities with terms no one can disagree with, because they are non-specific. I could say, "I have a plan for lowering health care costs for all Americans." No one can disagree with that statement . . . .

Well, if you go to the site above, he explains what his plan is.

So does McCain on his site.

Actually, they are quite similar in application :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

No -- McCain is for the govt. usurping some of the private aspects of health care, which is a pillar of universal health care, which you called fascist.

Also, please read the link above and you will see that Obama's plan is about the same type of choice.

I don't see that anywhere. What I do see from the link and any speech I've seen is just what I said above. He wasn't "taking over" anything. He was providing more competition and also some agreement between states to use market forces, facilitated by the government. Do you understand the background of what some of the terms on his site mean? I can walk through each one if you'd like. He's using markets from what I read. After reading his site, I've come to the conclusion that you posted it without reading it and assumed that his terms mean the same thing as Obama's.

[strandinthewind]

. . . He wasn't "taking over" anything . . . .

I do not see where either candidate is taking over anything 100%, which is what you alluded to when you incorrectly labeled universal health care as fascist.

What I meant was that McCain, like Obama, wants to use govt. money to promote heath care coverage for all people. McCain will use tax incentives (govt. money) , actual govt. money, and govt. influemce to acheive that goal. So, he is providing a govt. sponsored universal health care plan, with the choice to opt out. I believe Obama's plan is the same theory with some differences, which IMO will be more effective at curbing fraud.

In other words, if you cannot get insurance, the govt., will help you do so under either plan. If you want to get Aetna or some other private insurance, you are free to do so under either plan.

That is not fascism by any stretch.