So you’re now doing to McCain what you did to Hillary during the primaries: Steal Hillary’s superdelegate, make a concession with the superdelegate, and as part of negotiation, bully the superdelegate to publicly embrace the lies of Obama.

But you have a problem:

1. It’s not a primary anymore. It’s already general election. We don’t care about any superdelegate, be it a democrat or republican.

2. You chose a low-key conservative. Why not negotiate with Ron Paul to go public and force him to admit that he will vote for Obama. That will be more convincing and scary. But pls. check out the possible backfiring: those conservative voters of Ron will quickly return back to their real champion, who is McCain.

In your continuing effort to humiliate and belitte your own President, please remember the old saying: Beware of what you wish for.

Enjoy your remaining days of freedom under Bush Administration that you loathe so much (including freedom to be ingrateful). Your Obama will order you to begin your promised forced labor immediately after his inauguration in January. His wife, the Michelle will see to it that you pay your share of burden called Obama.

A “Lifelong Republican” who’s voting for Obama despite the fact that Obama’s domestic policy is “antithetical to everything he believes in.”

A sellout who’s trying to distance himself from his involvement in the creation of the Contract With America, so he’ll be invited to all the good parties and TV shows.

I wonder what Newt has to say about this guy…probably something polite and damning with faint praise.

The Republicans have a plan to pay the debt, no matter how long it takes, and only stop paying when the debt is paid in full – not sooner, not later.

Because of the hard work of Republicans, the debt is paid, and it finally becomes time to stop paying. Democrats react with glee, and say that Republicans agree with them that walking away from the debt is the right thing to do – and look – so do the people who held the note!

Now of course, the Iraq War is not a “debt”, but it was a promise. Our brave troops, Republicans and precious few Democrats kept that promise.

Congratulations!

Former Reagan policy advisor on Obama

the IMPORTANT POINT which he needs to hammer home EVERY DAY is that if Obama’s “JUDGEMENT” which he brags about so much (because he has zero experience or accomplishment) had carried the day- 18 months ago we would have begun the worst and most devastating retreat in American military history.

If we had followed Obama’s JUDGEMENT, there would be zero troops in Iraq, but thousands more US dead and wounded, and tens of thousands more dead Iraqi civilians butchered by Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army and the Iranian Quds Forces.

McCain needs to get off the timetable talk and focus on WHAT OBAMA WANTED AND BELIEVED WOULD HAPPEN. which just so happens to be exactly the OPPOSITE of what happened. McCain got it right at personal political cost (anyone remember John Silky Pony Edwards claiming the “MCCAIN SURGE” was a huge failure?). Wonder why we don’t hear liberals calling it the McCain surge anymore?

great analysis man

I’ll take minor exception (without a threadjack) to Crowe’s version of the Vietnam War. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy was quite well developed by the Brits in Malaya in the late ’50s. After initial floundering, it was implemented quite successfully under the much more violent conditions of Vietnam. By the time the US began withdrawing, the RVN government and security forces were ALMOST capable of handling the indigenous (VC) threat. Their near-success in stabilizing their country prompted the open invasion by North Vietnamese forces. It is this aspect that is most relevant to Iraq today. DON’T LEAVE PREMATURELY! And don’t expose Iraq to external threats beyond their ability to handle. It is probably wise to foresee a South Korea type “trip-wire” force in Iraq for the indefinite future.

“The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

Obama now wants us to ignore his record on the pivotal point of the Iraq War
but instead judge him on one of his many speeches on Iraq. From FISA to Public Campaign Financing,
Obama has demostrated that his speeches don’t really reflect what his actual policy will be on a subject.

Accepting Obama’s hypothetical that his 2002 speech would have been his actual policy in the Mid East,the hundred year war question now becomes Obama’s instead of John McCain. Obama advocates containing Saddam Hussein–perhaps for a 100 years. Obama would have sent in more troops into Afghanistan and chased Bin Laden into Pakistan–rather Pakistan liked it or not. As we forget Obama’s actual misjudgement on the Middle East policy, we must remember the middle east of 2002 so we can play out his imagniary success.

Since Pakistan had developed its nuclear weapon in the 1990′s, the US had implemented ecnomic sanctions against Pakistan. Pakistan support for the Taliban and rise in anti-American forces political parties was straining our alliance. Pakistan was an extensive illicit nuclear supplier. The network established in the 1990s by the self designated “father” of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadir Khan, which provided nuclear enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea

Iraq was under control of Saddam. Saddam had now successfully learned to skim the profits from the Oil for Food Program. These profits were being used to buy influence at the UN and with Kofi Annan himself. Saddam was also deliberately dividing the Security Council by awarding contracts to France, Russia, and China.

Iran was funding terrorism through out the middle east and developing its nuclear weapon program with the help of Russia and Pakistan.

Future Obama speeches can tell us how Obama would have brought peace to the 2002 middle east. While Obama will ignore that the war in Iraq caused Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons program and Libya to end its nuclear weapons program. The Iraq war allowed the United States to remove troops used to contain Saddam from Saudia Arabia–a recruiting tool for Jihadist. His future speeches will tell how he navigated the situation with face to face meetings with Iran and other tales of success. All we do know from Obama’s voting record as state senator is when things require leadership he’s present and from his time in the Senate, that he doesn’t know how to prosecute a war.

Has it escaped people’s notice that we have succeeded and continue to succeed in Iraq precisely because our civilians in control of the military (eventually, finally) followed a policy of victorious warfighting rather than a policy of policing a wild and varied population in a country with hostile neighbors and porous borders?

Vietnam was prolonged and eventually “lost” politically, not militarily. Our troops were prevented from securing the peace in those areas where they rooted out the enemy because no consistent efforts were made to secure the peace — they’d move in, kill bad guys (and sometimes not-bad guys who were caught in the middle, but that has happened in Iraq as well) and then leave. More bad guys would move into the area and punish any villagers who helped the Americans and the cycle would have to be repeated. There was little effort to sustain peace that had been won and little reason for the natives to trust that we really meant to win a just peace.

We lost Vietnam because the civilian leaders didn’t trust our military to do the job, finish the job, and secure peace. Iraq was prolonged unnecessarily until the civilian leaders finally caught on and allowed the military to do what it is able to do and good at doing. Had we followed a strategy in Vietnam akin to what Gen. Petraeus called for all along and eventually got those above him to sign onto, there’s at least a likelihood that The Wall wouldn’t have quite as many names on it, and the phrase “Boat People” wouldn’t have quite the connotation that it does.

John McCain (who, rumor has it, knows a thing or two about Vietnam) knew all this and advocated it from the get go.

Granted we wouldn’t even be in Iraq if Barack Obama had had his way (and I’m not going to re-fight why we were in the right to liberate Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein — that name rings a bell… hmm… “Hussein”… I digress), but any responsible person would acknowledge that once we were there the absolutely last thing we could do is simply withdraw until the just peace was secured. Democrats, upon whose shoulders the ugliness of Vietnam lays, were and are prepared to repeat the humiliating nightmare of Vietnam. They were and are prepared to leave another nation in the darkness of post-war chaos under the terrible rule of the bloody despots eager for the day when the merciful and just American warriors are plucked out of the scene by navel-gazing, irresponsible, short-sighted, immoral, no good, dishonest, condescending, ass-sheeppoliticians back in Washington, leaving a populace with no civilized government, stockpiles of weapons with no protection, and a world with even less reason to believe the West means anything it says about “peace” and “justice” and the “rightness” of democracy.

Mark, you and McCain are absolutely correct: the discussion about a “general time horizon” for withdrawal on responsible terms is only possible because of the surge. Obama and his capitulatation-prone ass-sheep colleagues must be soundly beaten about the head and shoulders (politically speaking, of course) for their arrogance and dishonesty.

(For the record, I’m not entirely fond of all Republicans — to be sure, we have our share of ass-sheep — but the Dems seem to be chock full and they tend to put their most ass-sheepiest ass-sheep in positions of authority.)