The Next President of the USA will be?

[zepyep]

Hi all,

You'll by feminine hygiene products at 3 am? You're definitely a keeper.

Where are you going to keep me?Just so ya know,I am house broken,....

KB(right away,dear)

[Hermit_]

I can answer that with one word, "Neither".

Then how do you explain McCain's almost daily lapses

in memory and his many other campaign trail gaffes, P-51?

And specifically how do you explain that while speaking in Pittsburgh last week, McCain said during an interview that when he was a POW he told his captors the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line when he was asked who his squadron mates were? Mind you, he has said many times before (including in his autobiography and in the movie about his POW ordeal) that it was the Green Bay Packers offensive line that he'd named. So, muh-man,.. since you say you think McCain was "neither" shamelessly pandering or shamelessly lying or is memory impaired to such degree as to be unfit to be POTUS, how do you then explain this lapse in memory about such a crucial event in his life of which he has previously spoken many times?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this matter, my friend.

[perhaps in more than one word this time,.. eh? ]

[TypeO]

Then how do you explain McCain's almost daily lapses

in memory and his many other campaign trail gaffes, P-51?

And specifically how do you explain that while speaking in Pittsburgh last week, McCain said during an interview that when he was a POW he told his captors the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line when he was asked who his squadron mates were? Mind you, he has said many times before (including in his autobiography and in the movie about his POW ordeal) that it was the Green Bay Packers offensive line that he'd named. So, muh-man,.. since you say you think McCain was "neither" shamelessly pandering or shamelessly lying or is memory impaired to such degree as to be unfit to be POTUS, how do you then explain this lapse in memory about such a crucial event in his life of which he has previously spoken many times?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this matter, my friend.

[perhaps in more than one word this time,.. eh? ]

For me, all that means about as much as Obama saying he'd been in all 57 states.

If ya gotta comb and pick for gaffes from these guys spending all their waking hours campaigning, you'll find plenty ON BOTH SIDES.

All this age crap is exactly the same thing said about Reagan. He turned out OK, I'd say.

And why is it "flip-flopping" is suddenly such a big deal - dems seemed to pooh-pooh the notion of flip-flopping in 04. But then again, they pooh-poohed military service when their guy (Billbo) had none, but a full 180 in 04 when that was potential vote-bait. Now, military service is back to "no big deal."

Which is it Dems?

This is one of many "finger in the wind" approaches that I find so disingenuous among dems.

[Electrophile]

For me, all that means about as much as Obama saying he'd been in all 57 states

You do realize that was a joke, right? The context of the statement was him talking about how much campaigning/traveling he had been doing. You can't possibly think he was serious in saying there are 57 states.

[TypeO]

You do realize that was a joke, right? The context of the statement was him talking about how much campaigning/traveling he had been doing. You can't possibly think he was serious in saying there are 57 states.

I think it's pretty obvious he meant 47, 1 to go besides alaska and Hawaii.

And again, I'm not putting anything to it.

Hell, he sounds tired.

But I'm not buying "it was a joke."

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Did he mean Heinz?

KB(57)

[Hermit_]

For me, all that means about as much as Obama saying he'd been in all 57 states.

If ya gotta comb and pick for gaffes from these guys spending all their waking hours campaigning, you'll find plenty ON BOTH SIDES.

All this age crap is exactly the same thing said about Reagan. He turned out OK, I'd say.

And why is it "flip-flopping" is suddenly such a big deal - dems seemed to pooh-pooh the notion of flip-flopping in 04. But then again, they pooh-poohed military service when their guy (Billbo) had none, but a full 180 in 04 when that was potential vote-bait. Now, military service is back to "no big deal."

Which is it Dems?

This is one of many "finger in the wind" approaches that I find so disingenuous among dems.

First of all,.. McCain's pervasive pattern of "mistakes" is indicative of 1. his being totally clueless (ie re: the economy and Iraq), 2. his shameless pandering in which he has obviously sold out what used to principled stances that he took on a whole host of issues (ie re: "agents of intolerance", Bush's "unconscionable" tax cuts, waterboarding/torture, abortion, climate change/energy policy, etc), and 3. his having a seriously impaired memory ("I never said that" when he's on video having said it.. which has happened a number of times). Obama on the other hand has made scant few errors with regard to the facts of any particular issue. And while Obama has moved toward the center on a couple of issues (most notably FISA), moving to the center is common practice in general election campaigning and does not constitute an outright selling out of his principles. FGor example, although Obama voted for the "compromise" FISA bill that gives immunity to the telecoms from civil prosecution, the bill does NOT provide the telecoms immunity from criminal prosecution, and as such Obama's principle on the issue remains intact: the principle that telecoms can and should be held accountable for their participation in any criminal domestic spying activity. Although Obama's principles remain intact on the telecom immunity issue, it should be noted that Obama is taking quite a bit of flack from many dems regarding his shift to the middle; dems are not giving him an outright pass on this.. unlike repubs who seem to be giving McCain an outright pass for his many obvious sellouts of what used to be his principles.

Secondly,.. "flip-flopping" is being made into an issue because 1. the repubs established "flip-flopping" as an issue in the 2004 general election when John Kerry changed his position on a few issue (primarily: "I voted for the invasion before I voted against it"), and 2. because John McCain is flip-flopping more often than a pancake chef at IHOP. Furthermore, McCain is changing his positions on a whole host of issues purely as a means of pandering for votes; his flip-flops are not changes of position due to his having acquired new information or due to a change in the circumstances regarding a particular issue, his flip-flops have been merely for the purposes of shameless pandering for votes. McCain's slew of principles-selling-out flip-flops calls into question his personal integrity. Democrats respect thoughtful rationale changes of positions; we don't respect John McCain-style changes of position (selling out of principles) undertaken purely as a means of political pandering.

Capisca?

[TypeO]

Democrats respect thoughtful rationale changes of positions; we don't respect John McCain-style changes of position (selling out of principles) undertaken purely as a means of political pandering.

Capisca?

McCain's domestic drilling 180 is an acknowledgement of changing circumstances - thoughtful rationale, as you put it.

But because he's a Republican, you call it pandering.

[Hermit_]

McCain's domestic drilling 180 is an acknowledgement of changing circumstances - thoughtful rationale, as you put it.

But because he's a Republican, you call it pandering.

Actually, on the drilling issue I consider it pandering because 1. the rationale is neither very thoughtful nor very rational, and 2. it's a position change that does nothing but pander to the big oil lobby to whom McCain has,.. in the past, due to his pro-environment principles,.. been a bur under the saddle of but from whom he now seeks financial support.

McCain's domestic drilling 180 is a blatant sellout of the pro-environment, anti-fossil fuel

dependence principles that he formerly espoused.. when he earned his "maverick" label.

Fwiw,.. if Obama starts calling for an expansion of domestic drilling, I can

assure you I'll be right here calling him a sell out, and I'll call it pandering.

Fwiw II,.. some congressional dems seem to be signaling that they might be willing to *support an expansion of domestic drilling*,.. and if they do vote to support an expansion of domestic drilling, I assure you I'll be right here to call them sell outs, cowards, and vote panderers.

[Hermit_]

You know hermit, unless you where there you will never know the horror's that our American Patriots that served in all our wars have gone through while in prisoner of war camps. It is such a shame that his miss quote about a football team is what you pick on Mc. Cain over and over for. Mc. Cain had the chance to leave the Hanoi Hilton but stayed and suffered with his comrades. Yes, this is the kind of man that I want to run our Country and am proud to say so. I realize, you are into someone that is coached to say all the correct "Talking Points". Even though Obama is coached, I could still list the many fumblings he has had during his campain. While I dissagree with just about all that he says, I will not stoop as low as you and attack him personally.

I am not dissing McCain's service to our country, Pee-51. I give McCain all due respect for his service to our country in Vietnam, and I deeply sympathize with his having been a victim of torture during his time as a POW [aside: seeing as though he knows first hand that torture yields bogus information (like his giving the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line to his captors when told to name his squadron mates), it seems rather bizarre that McCain voted to support the CIA use of torture on enemy combatants. /aside].

My point about McCain has been that he has told the story many times about how he gave the name of the Green Bay Packers offensive line to his captors at the POW camp. He is quite clear about that event in his personal history; he even wrote about it in his autobiography and he signed off on it being used in the movie about his POW ordeal. So when he's in Pittsburgh (a rabid football town with a rich football history) and he suddenly happens to.. by "mistake".. say he gave the name of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line when he was being tortured, I can't help but wonder if he did so as a means of pandering to Pittsburgh voters, or if he had a major lapse in his memory. I genuinely don't know if that was an incident of pandering or of major memory loss because he's exhibited multiple instances of both (pandering and lapses of memory) in this campaign. In either case, I've come to the conclusion that if it was pandering it was incredibly shameless, and if it was (another) incident of memory lapse then I have to question his mental fitness to be POTUS.

I don't understand why you think my thought process on this

is indicative of me "stooping low" or "picking on" John McCain.

Isn't it reasonable for me to consider it shameless if he used

that POW incident in an attempt to pander to Pittsburgh voters?

And isn't it reasonable for me to question his mental fitness to be POTUS if that really was an honest "mistake".. not a single memory impairment related mistake, mind you, but rather the latest in a series of seemingly memory impairment related mistakes he's made?

[Hermit_]

Kermit.................you just can't give up the personal attacks on John Mc. Cain, can you. I find that very sad indeed. Find one place that I have personally attacked Obama.

First of all,.. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't his name "McCain", not "Mc. Cain"?

Secondly,.. the following:

am not dissing McCain's service to our country, Pee-51. I give McCain all due respect for his service to our country in Vietnam, and I deeply sympathize with his having been a victim of torture during his time as a POW [aside: seeing as though he knows first hand that torture yields bogus information (like his giving the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line to his captors when told to name his squadron mates), it seems rather bizarre that McCain voted to support the CIA use of torture on enemy combatants. /aside].

My point about McCain has been that he has told the story many times about how he gave the name of the Green Bay Packers offensive line to his captors at the POW camp. He is quite clear about that event in his personal history; he even wrote about it in his autobiography and he signed off on it being used in the movie about his POW ordeal. So when he's in Pittsburgh (a rabid football town with a rich football history) and he suddenly happens to.. by "mistake".. say he gave the name of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line when he was being tortured, I can't help but wonder if he did so as a means of pandering to Pittsburgh voters, or if he had a major lapse in his memory. I genuinely don't know if that was an incident of pandering or of major memory loss because he's exhibited multiple instances of both (pandering and lapses of memory) in this campaign. In either case, I've come to the conclusion that if it was pandering it was incredibly shameless, and if it was (another) incident of memory lapse then I have to question his mental fitness to be POTUS.

..is not a personal attack. My logic, rationale, and skepticism are thoughtful and clearly expressed. Nowhere did I attack John McCain personally, I merely raised some reasonable questions about his apparent pattern of either: shameless pandering, shameless lying, or memory lapses. I've asked your opinion of which you think it is but all you answer is "neither"; you won't otherwise offer any explanation for McCain's pattern of "questionable behavior". Why do you avoid offering an explanation, Pee-man?

Since you keep insisting that I'm leveling personal attacks on McCain,..

please answer the following 2 very simple, very straightforward questions -->

Isn't it reasonable for me to consider it shameless if he used

that POW incident in an attempt to pander to Pittsburgh voters?

And isn't it reasonable for me to question his mental fitness to be POTUS if that really was an honest "mistake".. not a single memory impairment related mistake, mind you, but rather the latest in a series of seemingly memory impairment related mistakes he's made?

If you won't answer the questions, then maybe you'll at least say what

facts and/or observations you dispute in my assertions and questions.

"I'm waiting to hear, or are you going to crawl back" under your rock and hide?

[edited to add]..

you can wave your magic wand all you want, P-51,..

..but that won't make McCain's pattern

of "questionable behavior" disappear.

[Hi, buddy. ]

[zepyep]

Hi all,

I merely raised some reasonable questions about his apparent pattern of either: shameless pandering, shameless lying, or memory lapses.

Hey Hermit,that can never be applied to Obama,...?

KB(can hardly wait for that answer.) That's your favorite,...

KB

[Hermit_]

Hey Hermit,that can never be applied to Obama,...?

KB(can hardly wait for that answer.) That's your favorite,...

KB

Hey KB,by all means please do show me how Obama has exhibited anywhere near the degree of (ANY OF THE FOLLOWING).. pervasive shameless pandering, pervasive shameless lying, or repeated "mistakes" due to memory lapses and/or due to simply being uninformed.. that John McCain has.

Hermit(I figure I'll be waiting a loooong time for that answer. )

Hermit

Hermit

[Hermit_]

Kermit, so now you are admitting that Obama too has said wrong things, just not to the same degree. I dissagree with you, I think that Obama has miss spoken more often. Since you now "agree" that they "both" have, it is just a matter of "opinion" who has done it more often. I knew that it would not be long before you put your foot in your mouth.

I've pointed out numerous specific examples of McCain "mistakes", panders, lies, and lapses of memory.. more than enough to call into question McCain's mental fitness to be POTUS. You, on the other hand, have pointed out how many specific examples of Obama "mistakes", panders, lies, or lapses of memory? As far as I've seen: NONE. All you've done is whine ands cry about what you perceive is my "picking on" McCain.

Keep waving that magic wand, P-man,.. McCain's many panders,

lies, "mistakes" and memory lapses haven't disappeared yet, bud.

Go Steelers! Oh wait,.. McCain isn't in Pittsburgh anymore. This week his first stop is gonna be in Michigan, so I guess that means he'll be telling the Michigan media that when he was being tortured in Vietnam he gave his captors the names of the Detroit Lions defensive line.. eh?

[Hermit_]

TSure is fun to see you wiggle around after you have stuck your foot in it. You have already admitted that Obama has done the same thing. Now, it is just a matter of "opinion" on who has done it more. And, as usual...................you can't handle another opinion. Ol' kermit, hop back into your cave.

Keep waving your magic wand, Pee-man. McCain's many foibles

are still there for all to see, and Obama's are.. where, muh-man?

You said you could post "just as many" links to Obama mistakes as I

posted to McCain foibles, and yet you haven't posted any.. not a single

one!.. so I guess you're having a bit of a hard time finding any,.. eh?

P-man:

"Abra cadabra! ...Dammit!

Abra cadabra! ...Dammit!

Abra cadabra! ...Dammit! "

[Hermit_]

No, I do not need to now that you have admitted that Obama does the same thing.

Abra cadabra! ...Dammit!

Given that self-delusion is your forte, muh-man, I understand you denying the reality that John McCain has exhibited a pervasive pattern of questionable behaviors including shameless pandering, shameless lying, and a slew of mistakes suggesting he's grossly uniformed about the issues and/or his memory is impaired to such degree that his mental fitness to be POTUS is questionable.

Until you show that Obama has displayed a similar pervasive pattern of questionable behaviors,.. it'll remain obvious that you are not doing so because Obama has NOT exhibited any such pervasive pattern of questionable behaviors. John McCain HAS exhibited a pervasive pattern of questionable behaviors, and I've posted numerous specific examples of such.

[Dancin'Days]

kermit the frog, what part of "you" having admitted that Obama does the same thing do you not understand? You said it "yourself". Now, we can argue all day over who has done it more, and that will only be an opinion. But I realize that is were you have a problem, someone else's having a different opinion then yours. You can go back to managing Obama's campain now.

Oooops Wrong Planet 51, I see you, like Bush, have a habit of giving nicknames. Please no more Republicans in the White House!

[Hermit_]

kermit the frog, what part of "you" having admitted that Obama does the same thing do you not understand? You said it "yourself". Now, we can argue all day over who has done it more, and that will only be an opinion. But I realize that is were you have a problem, someone else's having a different opinion then yours. You can go back to managing Obama's campain now.

Abra cadabra! ....Dammit!

There's a big difference, P-man, between one or two isolated missteps on Obama's part and John McCain's persistent and pervasive pattern of shameless pandering, shameless lying, being grossly uniformed on the issues, and frequent memory lapses. McCain's pattern of behavior calls into question his personal integrity AND his mental fitness to serve as POTUS. You have presented no case by you can make the same claim about Barack Obama.

It's not either candidate's "having done it" that's the issue, muh-man,.. the issue is the persistent and pervasive pattern of questionable behaviors that has been exhibited by John McCain (most notably his frequent lapses of memory).. and that's the issue that you are so desperately.. and so obviously.. trying to avoid.

Oh btw,.. have you heard the exciting news?

McCain is trying to learn how to log onto the internet!!

----------------------

*John McCain 'technology illiterate' doesn't email or use internet*

"I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need."

~John McCain July 12, 2008

---------------------

"Huh? Explain that again, Cindy,.. how does

the postman get the mail into the computer?"

Ok,.. you can go back to waving your magic wand now, P-man.

[Hermit_]

Kermit, big deal, you know how to use photo shop. It is so sad that you continue to personally attack and belittle John Mc. Cain. I bet that there are even many around here that will not vote for him that think that you have gone over the edge. Show me one place that I have personally attacked your hero Obama. You are really sickening dude. And the way that it gets your goat that "YOU" admitted that Obama does the same thing that Mc. Cain has. And yes, YOU admitted to it. Now......hop back into your cave and dream up another one of your half page sickening personal attacks on a U.S. war Veteran, so that you can feel that you have done damage control on your own stupidity.

Abra cadabra! ...Dammit!

Oh, puh-lease. Cry me a river, P-man.

My every comment about McCain is relevant to the election and is true.

He's very old.

He's out of touch.

He's a shameless liar.

He's computer illiterate.

He's a shameless panderer.

He's got zero diplomacy skills.

He's uniformed on some key issues.

He's memory impaired to the point that

his mental fitness to be POTUS is questionable.

Am I forgetting (pun intended) anything?

If you can refute any of the above "attacks" on McCain, please do so, muh-man.

[You won't be offended if I don't hold my breath waiting on you to refute the above "attacks", will you? You know, seeing as though you've yet to dispute any of the points I've raised about McCain's pervasive and persistent pattern of questionable behaviors, and instead you merely cry foul at my "personal attacks" on the old fella. ]

Anyway..

I don't begrudge you your support for lying, pandering, out-of-touch, computer illiterate, torture advocating, flip-flopping, reproductive rights opposing, extremely forgetful John McCain. If he's the guy you want leading our nation, then you should vote for him.

Me, I prefer the candidate who's.. you know.. a bit more youthful, and way

more insightful, visionary, inspiring, truthful, progressive, and.. principled.

..and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

[btw,.. speaking of "stupidity", P-boy.. isn't his name "McCain", not "Mc. Cain"? ]

[Hermit_]

McCain has already gotten his daily "mistake" and/or "memory lapse" out of the way today:

-------------------

*McCain Again Refers To Czechoslovakia, A Non-Existent Country*

July 14, 2008

At his press avail today, John McCain referenced current

relations between Russia and, um, a non-existent country.

From a transcript...

"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech's agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern."

Czechoslovakia, of course, hasn't existed in over 15 years. Not the hugest deal, of course, but McCain keeps making this mistake. Around three months ago, McCain told Don Imus that he would "work closely with Czechoslovakia and Poland and other countries" to install the European Missile Defense System in Poland, according to the Democratic National Committee. (The slip-up was referenced elsewhere, too.)

And during a GOP debate in October 2007, McCain said: "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what his objections are to it."

We're nitpicking a bit here. But McCain is running on his supposed foreign policy superiority. And the GOP and McCain would hit Obama as a foreign policy greenhorn based on less than this.

---------------

Will somebody please donate a clue to John McCain!

Ok, ok, I'll give McMemoryLoss a little credit. At least he didn't go out

today and sing "bomb, bomb, bomb.. bomb, bomb Czechoslovakia".

[edited to add]..

McCain: "..they are now retargeting new targets.."

Russia is now "retargeting" (ie, targeting again)

"new targets" (first-time targets),.. eh, Johnny?

[marolyn]

[btw,.. speaking of "stupidity", P-boy.. isn't his name "McCain", not "Mc. Cain"? ]

in his defense, i think he was trying to make him sound more hip...like mc hammer...

[Hermit_]

^^

MC Cain's hit single: "Can't Remember This".

------------------

-------------------------

*My Plan for Iraq*

July 14, 2008

By BARACK OBAMA

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

----------------------

Sounds good (thoughtful, rational, reasonable,

informed, realistic, timely) to me, Mr President.

[marolyn]

kermit, you just can't stop trashing a U.S. Veteran, can you.

being a veteran does not make you infallible...

[Electrophile]

Did not care to bring that up in your last puke filled diatribe.

Looking forward to your next, way to LOOOOOOOOONG pathetic diatribe. Or, maybe you can help Obama by keeping your disgusting mouth shut.

Why don't you try and be a real adult for a while.

Can we say "irony" boys and girls?

[Hermit_]

kermit, you just can't stop trashing a U.S. Veteran, can you. And I an not talking about dissagreeing with his politics. It's your personal attacks, photo shoped pictures, and making fun of him any way possible that speaks volumes about how low you are. Amazing how you are now trying to hide from the fact that Obama has the same problems that Mc. Cain does. Did not care to bring that up in your last puke filled diatribe. You are freaking out because You admitted that your hero, Obama does the same things Mc. Cain does. Keep on filling these pages with your disgusting personal remarks, it is starting to help my side. You see, even many Obama supporters think that you are going way to far.....................

Abra cadabra! ...Dammit!

In other words,.. no, you can't refute any of the valid and politically relevant points I raised about McCain's pervasive and persistent pattern of shameless pandering, lying, and almost-daily mistakes and/or memory lapses... eh, 51?

My contention is that McCain's daily mistakes and memory lapses

raise legitimate questions about his mental fitness to be POTUS.

My contention is that his pervasive and persistent pattern of shameless

pandering and lying raise legitimate questions about his integrity.

My contentions have nothing to do with his being a veteran, and his being a

vet does not exempt him from the validity and legitimacy of my contentions.

For crying out loud, man.. the guy thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country!

..how can you not be concerned about his mental fitness to be POTUS??

Afaic, McCain's service does not exempt him from criticism.. or from ridicule.

..heck, he used a POW incident to shamelessly pander to Pittsburgh voters.

Afaic, McCain's age is fair game.

..especially since *McCain often uses age as a means of mocking Obama*.

Obama is 47 YO, but McCain often mockingly refers to him as "young man".

“I admire and respect Senator Obama,” Mr. McCain said, his voice full of

sarcasm. “For a young man with very little experience, he’s done very well.”

Yeah John, I guess when you're a 71 YO old fart,

a 47 YO man may seem like a "young" man to you.

"That Obama fellah.. he's a heckuva whipper-snapper, he sure is!

I was wearing adult diapers before that young man was even born!"

and btw, P-51..

Why do you keep trashing a U.S. Veteran by repeatedly

spelling his name "Mc. Cain" when it's spelled "McCain"?