Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm gonna have to go with 7960 on this one. The point was that McCain is an exact echo of Bush when it deals with Iraq. Just because they both want to remain in Iraq doesn't mean their policies are similar the same as Democrats who want out of Iraq aren't all the same either. McCain and Bush's having similar personalities doesn't mean anything about their policies.

They're virtually the same, the failed surge has been a Bush-McCain strategy, he wants to keep our troops there for as long as it takes, he's failed to move beyond the idea of a military success there, and virtually every expert agrees a different metric is going to have to be used to measure success

His policies are a continuation of failure, nothing more. He doesn't see Iran, Syria, etc.. as a potential partner, he's not going to be willing to engage them, and if he tries, why would they respect him?

If I were them, I certainly wouldn't.

What differences do you see? His disagreements with Rumsfeld are completely meaningless moving forward, and even looking back he didn't speak up when he could have done some good

How much courage does it really take to stand up and speak up against something once it's unpopular? Answer: None

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

They're virtually the same, the failed surge has been a Bush-McCain strategy, he wants to keep our troops there for as long as it takes, he's failed to move beyond the idea of a military success there, and virtually every expert agrees a different metric is going to have to be used to measure success

His policies are a continuation of failure, nothing more. He doesn't see Iran, Syria, etc.. as a potential partner, he's not going to be willing to engage them, and if he tries, why would they respect him?

If I were them, I certainly wouldn't.

What differences do you see? His disagreements with Rumsfeld are completely meaningless moving forward, and even looking back he didn't speak up when he could have done some good

How much courage does it really take to stand up and speak up against something once it's unpopular? Answer: None

McCain has been one of the biggest conservative critics of Bush on Iraq. When he was critical of Bush the liberals adored him. Only now that the surge is seeing progress he's willing to see it out. Before he was willing to walk away. He has a different mindset and view of Iraq as well as how to do it. His values of fighting the war are completely different from strategy right down to the moral issues of torture.

Just because the two want to stay in Iraq doesn't mean McCain is echoing Bush. If anything Bush is starting to listen to some of what McCain has been saying. But again, two politicians who want to stay in Iraq doesn't mean they're echoing each other the same as two politicians who want to withdraw aren't echoing each other. I don't believe Obama and Clinton echo each other on withdraw although I'm sure many conservatives would disagree. The differences are subtle, but they are most definitely there.

McCain recently repudiated unilateralism. He is against torture. He is against Rumsfeld and all the principles that guided him and still guides Bush in his absence.

He's also outlining a completely different position on foreign policy than Bush in hopes of helping our reputation in the world.

In a world "where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," McCain said in an implicit rebuke to the mind-set of the current White House. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

This doesn't sound like George Bush to me. Nor does it sound like he's echoing him. Again, just because they want to continue Iraq doesn't mean they're the same.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

McCain has been one of the biggest conservative critics of Bush on Iraq. When he was critical of Bush the liberals adored him. Only now that the surge is seeing progress he's willing to see it out. Before he was willing to walk away. He has a different mindset and view of Iraq as well as how to do it. His values of fighting the war are completely different from strategy right down to the moral issues of torture.

Adored? How about respected the fact that he actually spoke up?

The fact that McCain has been one of the biggest conservative critics speaks volumes of why it's important to not elect someone like him.. because he hasn't been very critical at all, he wasn't critical when it was important to speak up and do the right thing.. and his actions have often contradicted his words.

McCain has never been willing to walk away from Iraq, I don't know where you're getting that.

The surge isn't seeing any progress, it's been a dismal failure, the drop in violence (to still absolutely horrid levels) is almost completely attributable to Sadr calling a truce with other militias and the Anbar Awakening, the surge has nothing to do with it

And, it's failed to really get anything political accomplished. It's a failed strategy, completely.. because it assumes we can still win with military force, which isn't true.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Just because the two want to stay in Iraq doesn't mean McCain is echoing Bush. If anything Bush is starting to listen to some of what McCain has been saying. But again, two politicians who want to stay in Iraq doesn't mean they're echoing each other the same as two politicians who want to withdraw aren't echoing each other. I don't believe Obama and Clinton echo each other on withdraw although I'm sure many conservatives would disagree. The differences are subtle, but they are most definitely there.

Uh, if both want to stay in Iraq, the details of a strategy that believes we can still "win" militarily against a home grown insurgency don't really matter.

There are small differences, but the point is they're both for the same thing: Needlessly continuing our involvement in a country that doesn't want us there, lengthening the sad legacy of the United States failed military interventions..

A piece of shit is still a piece of shit even with a pretty ribbon tied around it, and the same is true of a failed strategy.

Originally Posted by JaJae

McCain recently repudiated unilateralism. He is against torture. He is against Rumsfeld and all the principles that guided him and still guides Bush in his absence.

McCain didn't learn anything from Vietnam, he still thinks you can defeat a homegrown insurgency and bomb your way to victory in a country that doesn't want you there. It's pretty pathetic.

As far as being against torture, McCain is all talk, no action. He takes principled stands when he has to talk about something, but as soon as he has to act on it, he capitulates.

LINK to said capitulation: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

He voted against banning the practice, so his legacy is that of someone who helped "legalize" the "enhanced interrogation techniques"

When push came to shove, he voted to allow the CIA to use it. That shows weakness in his character.

I don't care about his stance against Rumsfeld, every thinking person outside of Bush's inner circle didn't like him, and knew he was an incompetent bafoon.. but he didn't speak up when he should have, before the war started, agreeing with people who'd actually served in the military, like Shinseki.

So waiting until it's long beyond painfully obvious that Rumsfeld is fucking up to say something shows nothing more than someone trying to tiptoe around a political minefield for a Republican.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, if both want to stay in Iraq, the details of a strategy that believes we can still "win" militarily against a home grown insurgency don't really matter.

There are small differences, but the point is they're both for the same thing: Needlessly continuing our involvement in a country that doesn't want us there, lengthening the sad legacy of the United States failed military interventions..

The nitty gritty of our differences on this issue is right here. You say they're small differences. I think they're key differences. The differences between Obama and Clinton on Iraq can be considered small, as well. But, I consider their views to be different and not echoing each other. I'm sure many people would disagree with me. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We just have different standards I suppose.


EDIT:

Adored? How about respected the fact that he actually spoke up?

I had made a fairly controversial point so I figured I wouldn't bow out without addressing it. It is my opinion that when McCain was was speaking out against Bush and Iraq the media adored him. This is a common opinion, but it can rightly be disputed. The media was very kind to him and gave him a lot of press. The liberal blogs were loving up everything he said and were using him as their poster boy to argue against the war. I think by many it was taken a bit further than just respect. He was a their lone Republican savior they could use challenge the opinions of conservatives. But again, this is an issue of where to draw the line. I guess we both agree that the liberals highly favored him back then. But not so much anymore. That was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps "adore" isn't the right word to use, but I think the premise still holds true.

Keep in mind I do not like McCain. I will not vote for him. I don't mean to stand up for him because I really don't like him. I think he's says what he thinks he needs to say to get elected, much like Hillary... which sways his views with the wind. I don't see him as a genuine politician. I just view his differences with Bush in a similar way as I view the differences between Hillary and Obama that I outlined earlier in the thread:
Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...
Hillary advocates an unconditional withdrawal of troops. Obama is willing to leave troops in Iraq if he feels the situation warrants it. To me that's more than enough to say they aren't echoing each other although I'm sure many McCain voters would strongly disagree.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yet nobody has been able to answer me when I ask what their differences are other than to say that McCain will listen to the generals.

Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yeah, that's why I keep asking the McCain supporters to tell me what the differences are. I've asked twice and only gotten these non-answers.

Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

That's not an answer. Rumsfeld has been gone for a while now.

I asked for specific policy changes and nobody can provide them. You guys are a lot like the Obama supporters who can't name a single accomplishment.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

That's not an answer. Rumsfeld has been gone for a while now.

I asked for specific policy changes and nobody can provide them. You guys are a lot like the Omaba supporters who can't name a single accomplishment.

• bush created the situation in guantanamo; mccain opposes holding foreigners there
• bush allows waterboarding (and I'm assuming other torture); mccain is vehemently against it
• bush said we had enough troops years ago but then sent more; mccain thought there weren't enough all along

McCain supports Petraeus and the surge.......that's NOW. He has not supported the way Bush has run the war before. You wanted specifics, there they are at they relate to the war. There are more differences about spending, budgets, earmarks, katrina/FEMA but I wasn't sure if we were just talking about the war.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

bush created the situation in guantanamo; mccain opposes holding foreigners there

Which is why he voted to support the suspension of habeas corpus for people SUSPECTED of being terrorists, so they were unable to challenge their detention, including those people we've now learned have been completely innocent?

No, he's gone along with Bush's vision every step of the way when it actually mattered.

Talk is cheap.

Originally Posted by 7960

bush allows waterboarding (and I'm assuming other torture); mccain is vehemently against it

That's why when push came to shove, he voted to legalize it, right?

Do more than listen to a speech, look at his voting record. Read my post earlier where I linked the vote if you want proof.

Originally Posted by 7960

bush said we had enough troops years ago but then sent more; mccain thought there weren't enough all along

Why do you believe this? The facts contradict it. I'm not sure where you're getting your information about McCain, but I'd suggest you start getting it from somewhere that's accurate.

He also sounded like Wolfowitz's boss, Donald Rumsfeld, as far back as late 2002. Despite all his talk now about more troops, as the war drums built toward a crescendo, McCain argued that better technology meant fewer troops were going to be needed in Iraq. "Our technology, particularly air-to-ground technology, is vastly improved," McCain told CNN's Larry King on Dec. 9, 2002. "I don't think you're going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw, nor the length of the buildup, obviously, that we had back in 1991." It was pure Rumsfeld.

But even back then, not everyone was so sure that the war would be brief or that Rumsfeld's smaller force would be sufficient. On Feb. 25, 2003, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki famously warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand" soldiers would be needed to take and hold Iraq. Rumsfeld publicly disagreed with Shinseki's estimate.

If McCain shared Shinseki's position, he didn't say so at the time. "I have no qualms about our strategic plans," he told the Hartford Courant in a March 5 article, just before the invasion.

If he had any problem with Rumsfeld's strategical plans, he sure didn't speak up about it when it mattered.. and as far as disliking Rumsfeld, he didn't say anything until long after it was obvious that Rumsfeld was inept and doing a piss poor job:

And McCain was not always sour on Rumsfeld. As late as May 12, 2004, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, McCain was asked on "Hannity & Colmes" whether Rumsfeld could still be effective in his job. "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job," McCain responded. "He's an honorable man."

Both of those quotes from: John McCain's real war record | Salon News

I guess you didn't read my post, but McCain has a long history of capitulating when it actually matters, taking a "principled" stand when he only has to talk about it, but abandoning it and rolling over when he actually has to back it up with a vote.

Every single point you've listed trying to differentiate him has been wrong.

This is one of the reasons the Democrats are going to have a hard time in the fall, because so many people, including ones who are pretty up to date on political matters have John McCain completely wrong, and for the most part, the mainstream media hasn't been willing to go after him for his long standing hypocrisy and lack of spine for standing up for what he believes in

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

He was a supporter of his in public long after it was obvious to everyone who wasn't a Bush 'r that he was incompetent and doing a horrible job

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

That's not an answer. Rumsfeld has been gone for a while now.

I asked for specific policy changes and nobody can provide them. You guys are a lot like the Obama supporters who can't name a single accomplishment.

and McCain is one of the reasons he is gone. McCain has been behind General Petraeus. Those are policy changes.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Which is why he voted .....

We're talking about their current position. He's on record as saying we should close the camp at guantanamo.

That's why when push came to shove, he voted to legalize it, right?

Do more than listen to a speech, look at his voting record. Read my post earlier where I linked the vote if you want proof.

and that vote was about waterboarding? or the vote was on a bill that had 50 or 500 or 5000 things in it and he voted based on the entire bill?

Why do you believe this? The facts contradict it.

"The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives."

USATODAY.com - McCain: Force levels in Iraq inadequate

in 2003 he was saying we needed more troops. i'm not going to go searching around to find where he made the same claim in 2004 and 2005, but here's one from 2006

McCain: Send 20,000 more troops to Iraq - Politics - MSNBC.com

[motivez]

So in other words, you're more interested in talking points than what he's actually willing to stand up for when it matters.

Got it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and McCain is one of the reasons he is gone. McCain has been behind General Petraeus. Those are policy changes.

So keeping the same General running things is policy change?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So keeping the same General running things is policy change?

well actually he has been promoted to Centcom Commander and will oversee Iraq/Afghanistan and the rest of the ME.

I am confused, you asked for how McCain is different from Bush on Iraq, I point it out and you just . What are you looking for?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I am confused, you asked for how McCain is different from Bush on Iraq, I point it out and you just . What are you looking for?

I just don't see the difference between the situation now and the situation your describing when McCain takes office.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

less Rumsfeld and more General Petraeus.

"Rumsfeld will still be gone and McCain will listen to the same guy Bush is listening to"..... doesn't seem any different.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by motivez

When both want to stay for as long as it takes to achieve some impossible (according to virtually every expert) military "win" .. it doesn't really matter how they are different, they'll both keep us on the wrong track

Anyone who thinks the guy who goes around singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is going to be able to get them to the table to be a partner for a successful resolution in Iraq is delusional.

We have to have someone who doesn't think you can carpet bomb your way to victory.. it didn't work in Vietnam, it wont work here.

McCain is a relic, someone whose thoughts center around outdated archetypes.. we need someone who can keep up with the world we live in today, and that's not him.

That is what I was trying to say. I'm glad someone else sees it, because I thought I was going nuts.

The archetype of a President only being Presidential of this country with gun totting-carpet bombing-nuclear threatening attitude is the opposite of what this country needs if we are going to survive as a nation.