If I gave you a ticket to Iraq right now, would you go over there and just walk around that market by yourself?
I don't know... The way the republicans campaigned in 04 (arresting people at rallies, not allowing people access to speeches) anything is possible.
More about how safe it is to walk around Baghdad -- A NEWBORN baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed today when a suicide bomber detonated a truck laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21496572-2703,00.html
Wingnut position: Liberals don't support the troops. Only Republicans do that. Liberals want America to fail in Iraq. Only Republicans want America to win. Therefore: It is entirely appropriate for a Republican Presidential candidate to divert 100 soldiers and 5 helicopters from their normal duties (that will prsumably lead to victory in Iraq) so that they can shepard said candidate on a ridiculous photo op. Furthermore: Should anyone question said candidate's sanity or motives, they will be answered with inane, nonsensical questions that have no bearing on the question at hand.
I live in AZ. I have seen McCain walk around many times. I have never seen him with security. I have never seen armed soldiers "clear" an area before he makes an appearance. I have never seen him need 100 armed soldiers, five helicopters, and a bullet-proof vest. (I think you have to get the nomination to start getting SS protection anyway.) Here's what he said... "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." He's not implying a different standard for "Presidential hopefuls" and others. He's clearly being intentionally inclusive.
Wow...talk about the last time I'll ever ask a question on here. I was merely asking if McCain was doing much differently than he would here and I admit the helicopter and diversion of 100 troops was excessive. I guess I should apologize or something for having the gall to ask the question.
Were those people killed because of the visit by McCain? I remember Lara Logan saying that the reason you didn't see stories about troops fixing schools or tapping wells was because people who are usually interviewed about something like that end up getting attacked and requests to interview them are always turned down out of fear. Maybe it's not fair to say this, but McCain got to make his point and now some people are dead as a result.
I'm more referring to the posts prior to rimrocker's second post as I started writing my post prior to his posting that second one. The posts along the line of: "Would you go there?" "You're asking a question that has no relevance" "What about the vest?" "What about Mike Pence?" It's just that I find it funny that my question is labeled as off topic but a question such as "What about Mike Pence?" is not.
you made the point that mccain would walk around the same way in america. I've never seen him or any other candidate wearing a bullet proof vest. answering your question. maybe would should have all just replied "no".
Because it was on topic... vl was responding to your assertion that: Since Pence is not a presidential hopeful, he would, according to your construct, be able to walk around without security, but that is obviously not true. Now, perhaps vl could have been a little clearer in his post, but it was a legitimate response to your post.
wow.. can't you get it that is was a response to your post that Mccain had security because he was a potential 08 candidate? I was trying to point out that obviously Mike Pence who is not a presidential hopeful but probably still had security so I don't know how you can think of my post was out of topic
You might take the shoe out of your mouth. It would make you easier to understand. D&D. Chewed Leather.
There might be something to McCain's statement. Nightline just did a story in Baghdad where they sent a team of reporters with minimal security to several spots in Baghdad. They did report that things do appear safer in several spots. They did state that they didn't spend more than an hour at each site as they felt that the presence of lightly guarded Americans outside of the Green Zone might still attract trouble. They also staed that the safest areas were close to the Green Zone but in general there does appear to be evidence that the surge is working.
Gifford, how dare you? If I remember Jorge went to a fairly exclusive college. He used to brag about it a lot. Note: Jorge is excluded from the new glynch policy of being a gentler and kinder poster till he plays nicer. Gifford shouln't it be wingnuttiness instead of wingnuttia? Small point, but Hayes may want to comment on it. Hayes also excluded from my new policy, but he and I may drink beer in Houston if ever comes back from his current tax haven.
Well I certainly think that even pre-surge the US military was capable of setting up temporarily safe areas as long as they retained a massive US presence. Hasn't that always been the case?
