Jun 28 2008
Two new presidential ads; one pathetic, the other funny
Moveon.org produced and is airing this ad, taking on Senator John McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” statement. It’s a pathetic attempt to try and make McCain seem like a heartless man, interested in only war.
McCain has said clearly, while troops could be in Iraq for 100 years, its the actual combat and troop casualties that are the determining factor. (As he points out, we still have troops in Germany. We still have troops in South Korea.)
The joy of this year’s presidential campaign is seeing the spoofs of the candidates, and their messages, on YouTube. Take for instance, this guy’s ad on Senator Barack Obama’s plan to raise some taxes.
To be fair, Obama’s tax increases are very targeted, mostly to the upper-upper class, but you get the point.
What do you think?
(5 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Obama’s redistribution of other people’s money ( i.e. wealthy, successful hardworking people) would make Marx proud. Absolute social communism. He’ll promise people who somehow are convinced that somebody “kept em down”, that the wealthy rigged the situation and now should pay the less fortunate for being …..welll….less fortunate. The fact : he’ll be trading promises for votes.
Nobody in America has EVER worried or voted helping the needy. EVERYBODY should worry about rewarding the needy/undermeployed/unemployed/ etc for remaining so. Everyone should remember that it’s not the money that makes us what we are. It’s our principles that make us Americans.
The point that these two juxtaposed videos *seems* to make is that money is valued more than human life. An unfortunate pairing, since I don’t think that was the intent of the message.
Almost everyone understands what McCain meant about the 50 -100 years remark; he explained that. What he *didn’t* explain is when the killing, wounding, and injuries would stop–which are the criteria he announced would be in place *before* the possible 50 - 100 years peace time occupation begins. Since there appears to be no exit strategy *still*, in a war that has lasted longer than both the Korean War and World War II, are we supposed to accept low level violence in Iraq indefinitely, which could also last 50 - 100 years–or longer?
And I have news for McCain: if he plans to start another unnecessary war, he can’t have the kids (although they’re adults) from our family either.
Lynn, yes he did explain that. And he got criticized from the left. He went on the Today show and said what Americans care about is the casualties, not the amount of time we spend there. He was called ‘clueless’ and ‘confused’ when he said that.
And I believe it was you, Lynn, who said the surge wasn’t going to work and would be a failed policy. Turns out it is working, according to most assessments. Even 15 of the 18 benchmarks the Democratic congress passed have been met, which is why there was little fight in the Congress to get the funding passed for it.
I don’t think McCain plans to start an “unnecessary war.” Either he, or Obama, will be the Commander-In-Chief Lynn, not you. So I’ll leave it up to them to decide which wars are necessary and which ones are not. And if my child wants to join the military and go fight for his country… I would be proud, not ashamed.
Yes, I made that clear. I wasn’t criticizing McCain for that at all. He is smart, ambitious, calculating, and determined–just like Obama. However, like most people, I want to know when the killing, wounding and injuries will end, and if there’s a specific plan for expediting that. Obviously we will be there for decades; they didn’t build that enormous embassy for nothing. I do hope it will be for peacetime patrol very soon.
Also, I’m not Left, I’m moderate, as I’ve attempted to explain *more* than once.
The surge was initiated for breathing space for political reconciliation–that was its stated objective. That has been slow going, at best. 15 out of 18 benchmarks are completed? Do you have a link for verification of that? I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I’ve been searching and can only find comments on far Right and far Left blogs or news sites for June or July 2008, and I don’t trust those to be impartial. If you can provide some information, I’d appreciate it.
The surge has brought about unexpected benefits, and I am very happy about that. When it brings about political reconciliation, and Iraqis can take over and run their own country, I’ll admit I was wrong. I hope I can do that very soon, too.
We should have stayed in Afghanistan and found and killed bin Laden and crushed al Qaeda. Now he is still free and al Qaeda and the Taliban are growing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Farmers who were poppy growers are joining the Taliban because we have stopped their poppy/opium businesses without a replacement. We need to stamp out that terrorist growth before it’s gone too far for us to stop.
The funding was passed in Congress because no one wants to be blamed for any repercussions of not fully funding the war, and I’m sure you realize that.
As for military service, people in my family have served in the Army, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard, and my family is proud of that. But I have to come clean and admit that “not our kids” is my mother’s prayer, and not reality, because if there is a draft I know they would go, as they have told me. I also think more people would be willing to go if we could trust our leaders. I hope we can trust the judgment of our next president, whomever he is.
Lynn, here’s the link on the assessment report to Congress:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html
Maliki says terrorists in Iraq have been defeated:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-06-surge_N.htm
The Middle East Times report on how the “U.S. may yet win in Iraq”:
http://www.metimes.com/Editorial/2008/07/04/us_may_yet_achieve_victory_in_iraq/3177/
And the mere fact Obama is considering shifting his position on the Iraq withdrawal, should tell you something.
As far as Afghanistan, you say we should have stayed there as if we left. We never left Afghanistan. Do we have enough troops there? Probably not, but to say we should have stayed there suggests something that didn’t happen.
Thanks, I saw that. Cut and pasted from what I wrote on another message board:
*****************************************************************
Iraq’s benchmarks http://www.cfr.org/publication/13333/
I’ve heard this news story, but the information is all similar to this :
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&pid=&sid=1432122&page=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html
I’m looking for details as to what has been met and what still needs to be done. Does anyone have anything more on this?
Specifically, I’m looking for a site like this, with some commentary about each benchmark–nonpartisan if possible.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/benchmark.html
Thanks for any links or info you can provide!
*******************************************************************
I’m looking for detailed information, such as on the american progress site, but also a more impartial source. Maybe the GAO will come out with something.
Yes, it tells me that Obama’s willing to look at facts and adjust decisions based on that, which would be a welcome change. McCain seems to be doing that too, so Obama doesn’t have a corner on that.
No, I meant we should have ONLY stayed there, and not gone into Iraq. We should have swarmed that place, brought bin Laden to justice so his followers don’t think he’s divinely protected, crushed al Qaeda, and the Taliban, and had a decisive victory.
Thanks again for the link. I’ll keep searching.
I sent a reply to this on 7 July, about 8:30 p.m., but it doesn’t look like it went through.
Not exactly what I sent, but thanks for posting part of it.