Other than trader jorge - I don't see a lot of people thinking that McCain's foreign policy credentials are much to write home about. Really I think it's just that he's either too indifferent or inept on domestic matters that the media tends to assume he must be good at something.
Experience doesn't matter if the experience is McCain being wrong in both judgement and facts about situations in important parts of the world and concerning matters important to the U.S. foreign policy. Experience of bring wrong time and time again isn't really a positive for a candidate.
HO HO HO First of all, Sam, I speak for the silent majority. I have countless emails thanking me for my conservative voice. I don't need an army of supporters that post -- I do the job of 100 men. What, SamFisher, has Obama done to credentialize himself on foreign policy matters? Took a trip to Pakistan during his college years? Lived with Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia? bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha The fact of the matter is that Obama has done more foreign policy damage than any candidate in recent memory -- with China, Pakistan, and the NAFTA signatories... what a joke. The guy is just in over his head. Totally unqualified.
Wrong. It was McCain's judgment that created the push for a change of strategy in Iraq -- towards the counter-insurgency tactics and towards the surge. It was Obama's horrific judgment that said the Surge would fail. He was 100% wrong. His website purging confirms that. Furthermore, we don't need a leader like Obama who drones on and on about how our troops can't get the job done. That's not hope -- that's despair.
John McCain is ignorant of the power structure in Iran. I lost him when he said, "if you asked any average American...." Too bad the press didn't really pick up on this. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yr6Va7PEBg8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yr6Va7PEBg8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Is the Iraqi govt. politically stable? That was the stated goal and measuring point of failure or success of the surge. Is the Iraqi govt. politically stable?
In order to shorten up this quote of 347 words, you put this in place of this Savings of 23 words. Congrats, really took away from that "wall of text".
What does how bad Hussein was, and the different bad things that he did, have to do with Obama being against the war at the time? I'm not sure where you are coming from on this.
To show the parts where Obama was stating that he was against the Iraq war back in 2002. You asked me on what I based my idea that Obama was against the war from the beginning. I used the parts of the speech that showed he was against it.
A clever trick to vividly illustrate how you don't understand the meaning of the word censure? Things CaseyH doesn't understand: 1. why people use anabolic steroids 2. the meaning of the word "censure"
Because they weren't about him being against the war. There was more before what I posted from the speech, and more after also. I'm sure it's more than 23 words.
so in order to shorten the 360 word quote you took out 23 that were not needed? A reduction of 6% was worth the time? why were these needed?
true but only 23 were in the middle of the part of the speech you quoted and then took out with a "..." congrats on posting the unEdited uncensored version.
It took no time to edit it out. The beginning didn't talk about him being against the war very much at all, so I didn't include it. The part that was about being against the war also included some other stuff that wasn't needed, but because I didn't feel like spending that much time on it, I didn't bother editing that down. I'm not sure where you get 23 words from. Look at the entire thing. There was more than 23 that I took out.
I didn't take anything out of the middle of my initial quote. It might have been missing from my source material, but I didn't edit that out myself.
Ok, where did you get the source material from? is different from this You are getting your stuff from a biased source.
I have no doubt it was biased. It was from a friend's e-mail. I've asked him where he got it from, but I haven't heard yet. I'll let you know once I found out. The bias however has zero to do with where Obama's position was in terms of being for or against the war. He was against it. And whether the material edited stuff out or not, that doesn't change the point that was being made.
