July 27th, 2008, 07:18 PM
|
#60 (permalink)
|
| Not an OWO yet, just OLD!
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Uh, Central Oregon
Posts: 5,718
| Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech  Then they got you to substitute substance for nonsense. It's what defense attorneys do all the time to place doubt in jury's minds -- it's the kitchensink approach. Let's review the Republican tactics:
They attacked Obama for being a neophyte for even discussing a timeline for withdrawal. That criticism is completely overwhelmed when Mr. Maliki stated that was in line with Iraq's desires. Then both Bush and McCain essentially adopt Obama's plan and call it their own, with the exception that the "timetable" is called a "time horizon." | So mouth . . . what is the time table???? Obama wanted to set a specific set of dates as intended withdrawal dates . . . . Time Horizon doesn't set specific dates, but lets you know it will be in the near future. BIG diference. As for Maliki's comments . . . he flip-flops as good and as much as any American politician, Republican or Democrat. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech Obama said that he would sit down and talk to Iran. Both McCain and President Bush labeled those direct talks with Iran "appeasement." But that did stop Bush from recently sending State Department officials to nuclear talks with Iran. Even the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page makes the same observation: “Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran.” |
Last I heard MTA, there's a huge difference between the "President"/"President-elect" and the Secretary of State. Personally, I, under current conditions, agree that GWB, Obama, and McCain, shouldn't be sitting down and talking with Iran. The sending of Rice, in international political circles, was probably the best choice and really shouldn't be considered "appeasement".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech So, now they invent a false issue, Obama won't visit the hospitalized troops. Let's review this. Obama wanted to visit those troops and was even willing to visit them alone but was hindered by the Pentagon. Yup, that Obama sure doesn't support the troops. That act sure does mean that Obama, who was active with the GI Bill in Congress, hates the troops compared to troop lover McCain, who opposed the GI Bill. |
Sorry, but it isn't a false issue to many of us, number one. Second, if you think for a minute that the Pentagon can stop a United States Senator from visiting wounded American servicemen and women . . . you haven't a clue!!!
For the second time in this thread, I'm going say: Quote: |
Ya' know MTA . . . sometimes it's really hard to understand what a naive moron you tend to be . . . |
Harder
__________________
* NOSCE TE IPSUM *
* NOLI ME TANGERE * |
|  |