The Next President of the USA will be?

[Electrophile]

I don't have one.

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

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

I don't get that either. The man is running for President, the least you can do is spell his damn name right. Then again, considering he thinks your name is Kermit the Frog, maybe we're dealing with someone who is in general, bad with names.

[Pb Derigable]

^^

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.

I was in a hotel lobby in dayton ohio with 50 other people and they all laugh when they heard this on CNN this morning. Obama will get booed in Iraq, he should not go, even after this. This is all fine a dandy, but this is just dreams, there is no plan, just a dream. McCain can say the same exact thing and not be considered a flip flopper.

Dear. Obama, If diplomacy fails and Iraq falls apart after we leave too early , will you send troops back into Iraq. That is the most important question right now about Iraq.

[Hermit_]

electrophile, how do you feel about hermit's personal attacks on John Mc. Cain? I am not talking about his talking bad about his politics. I'm talking about the demeaning pictures that he post's, etc.

Would you feel better if I don't post that pic of McCain using the walker?

I wonder, P-51,.. if wasn't posting that picture would you then be willing to acknowledge that I've made politically relevant points that raise legitimate questions about McCain's integrity and about his mental fitness to be POTUS? Or is your "personal attack" protestation merely a distraction.. you know, so you don't have to acknowledge the fact that McCain's daily mistakes and memory lapses DO indeed raise legitimate questions about his mental fitness to be POTUS?

Pardon me for thinking it's more likely the latter.

[Hermit_]

I was in a hotel lobby in dayton ohio with 50 other people and they all laugh when they heard this on CNN this morning. Obama will get booed in Iraq, he should not go, even after this. This is all fine a dandy, but this is just dreams, there is no plan, just a dream. McCain can say the same exact thing and not be considered a flip flopper.

Dear. Obama, If diplomacy fails and Iraq falls apart after we leave too early , will you send troops back into Iraq. That is the most important question right now about Iraq.

If the Iraqi Prime Minister and and the Iraqi Parliament want the US to withdraw troops

according to a timeline (which they do), would you defy their sovereign wishes, Pb?

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

*Iraq's PM wants dates for army withdrawal*

Tue, July 8, 2008

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's prime minister says his country wants a timetable for a

withdrawal of American troops as part of a deal the two countries are negotiating.

It's the first time Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called

for a withdrawal timetable -- an idea opposed by U.S. President George W. Bush.

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

What, pray tell, do you think the ramifications will be should the POTUS keep

troops in Iraq contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi PM and parliament.. eh Pb?

[if your answer is realistic, it'll include the phrase 'skyrocketing death toll of US troops'. ]

[Pb Derigable]

If the Iraqi Prime Minister and and the Iraqi Parliament want the US to withdraw troops

according to a timeline (which they do), would you defy their sovereign wishes, Pb?

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

*Iraq's PM wants dates for army withdrawal*

Tue, July 8, 2008

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's prime minister says his country wants a timetable for a

withdrawal of American troops as part of a deal the two countries are negotiating.

It's the first time Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called

for a withdrawal timetable -- an idea opposed by U.S. President George W. Bush.

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

What, pray tell, do you think the ramifications will be should the POTUS keep

troops in Iraq contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi PM and parliament.. eh Pb?

[if your answer is realistic, it'll include the phrase 'skyrocketing death toll of US troops'. ]

He is only saying that to look tuff with his people and to ease iran a little bit. To use the deaths of american troops to futher your liberal cause is quite looney I might add.

I can not belive any president will use any timetable for troops withdrawl. Bush is chided for saying the war won't last for long. Now what will happen if obama gets elected and in 2012 we still have troops in iraq. Do you think he will get reelected. Bush Sr. promise no new taxes and he was shown the door.

Praytell, how will Obama choose which troops will go home first, would he be forgiven by the familes of the troops who have to stay till the end. They don't pull everbody out at once, so how many troops will die becuase of the withdrawl. There are going to be soliders who are left to defend for themselves, becuase there is no one else.

[Electrophile]

I respect John McCain as a person, I disagree with him as politician. I don't see what is so hard about spelling his name right, though. There's no good reason to spell it the way you did to begin with.

And keep up with the non lady Elizabeth stuff......my dad thinks you're hilarious. Partly because he also thinks you're mental.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Your Dad's on here?

Does he know about us,......the 3am runs,the cooking?Holy shoot!

KB (kidding E)

I respect John McCain as a person, I disagree with him as politician. I don't see what is so hard about spelling his name right, though. There's no good reason to spell it the way you did to begin with.

And keep up with the non lady Elizabeth stuff......my dad thinks you're hilarious. Partly because he also thinks you're mental.

[Hermit_]

kermit, why have you avoided the question:

By the way, what do you think about Obamas Spiritual leader, you know the one that married him and Baptised his kids, the one that he respects and looks up to like a family member, the one that he has spent over 20 years listening too, and the one that had the disgusting anti American and Racist remarks??

I didn't avoid it, I ignored it.. because it's irrelevant at this point. It's old news. I'd even go so far as to say that as an issue it's more stale than a 71 year old cracker (you know.. a saltine). Obama jettisoned Wright long ago and he and his family left that church. End of story, muh-man.

Now then,.. how's about you address the issue of McCain's pervasive pattern of shameless pandering, lying, and his remarkably frequent lapses in memory.. lapses that are happening so frequently (did you see that today he indicated that he believes Czechoslovakia is still a nation?) that they raise legitimate questions about his mental fitness to be POTUS.

Go ahead *Rev Tutu*.. the floor's all yours.

He is only saying that to look tuff with his people and to ease iran a little bit. To use

the deaths of american troops to futher your liberal cause is quite looney I might add.

To "ease" Iran? Uhh,.. do you mean "appease", perhaps?

In any case, I think you're wrong, muh-man. It's fairly apparent that the Iraqi parliament is not in agreement with Bush's plan for permanent US military bases, and Al Maliki cannot make an agreement with Bush without the Iraqi parliament signing off on it. Al Maliki sees the writing on the wall and is turning away from lame duck Bush and is instead shoring up his position with the Iraqi parliament (and, yes, with Iran). The Iraqi parliament wants a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops and and they'll get it.

And fwiw,.. I wasn't "using the deaths of American troops to further [my] liberal cause", bonehead. I was merely stating an obvious consequence that would occur if the POTUS decided to keep US troops in Iraq contrary to the sovereign wishes of the Iraqi PM and parliament. It's very likely that the various Iraqi sects would join forces, at least informally and temporarily, against the American troops (who at that point will certainly be seen as hostile "occupiers") to try to force them out. Hence the 'skyrocketing of US deaths' in that scenario. Get it now, Pipeboy?

[Electrophile]

He doesn't have an opinion on the subject because I'm a grown adult woman and he doesn't have a say in what language I use on the internet. This is the internet, not tea with the Queen. When I'm surrounded by people whose opinions matter to me, I speak accordingly. I don't give a fig for you favor, fair or foul.

Hi all,

Your Dad's on here?

Does he know about us,......the 3am runs,the cooking?Holy shoot!

KB (kidding E)

No, he doesn't post here. I send him screen shots of posts in email forwards, partly because his job is high-pressure and he could use the laughs.

[Dzldoc]

This is the internet, not tea with the Queen.

Will that be one lump or two deary?

[Electrophile]

Will that be one lump or two deary?

Two lumps, kind sir. And could you pass the lemon?

[TypeO]

[if your answer is bombastic, it'll include the phrase 'skyrocketing death toll of US troops'. ]

fixed.

Seriously Hermit - skyrocketing?

Other than the 1 year-long Gulf War, this war has the lowest death rate of any war, and not by a little.

~4076 over a 5 year period - around 800 a year.

The next closest is the Philippine War (?) which averaged 1,049 deaths per year, and then the Spanish-American War with 2446 in 1 year.

Am I glad about losing 800 US service members each year? No.

But it's most important to finish it properly instead of pulling a cut-n-run and writing off all those casualties as a lost cause.

Because despite media / left-wing screaming points to the contrary, the war IS succeeding.

I work on an Army base, and I talk to soldiers DAILY that have been to Iraq.

So my comments aren't derived from some website or talk show or anything else.

I get the information from the people who have been walking in the sand over there for 12 and 15 months at a time.

And they all say that the media reports are way off, that the people of Iraq ARE on board for the most part, and don't view us as occupiers, imperialists or that we're there to take control of their oil.

Schools have been rebuilt, they're pumping over 2.5 million barrels of oil daily, and the vast majority of the country is not hostile. There are only pockets of resistance and problem areas.

In fact, Bush's biggest mistake was bowing to media/left wing pressure by avoiding the appearance of being seen as an occupation force. So he tried to do it with as few as possible.

We should have stayed at full strength after the fall of Baghdad, instead of backing off in deference to pressure from world opinion.

Spilled milk, etc.

But to return to my original response, "skyrocketing" death toll is a shamelessly blatant and agenda-driven attempt to continue distorting perceptions of the war.

[Hermit_]

Seriously Hermit - skyrocketing?

Other than the 1 year-long Gulf War, this war has the lowest death rate of any war, and not by a little.

~4076 over a 5 year period - around 800 a year.

The next closest is the Philippine War (?) which averaged 1,049 deaths per year, and then the Spanish-American War with 2446 in 1 year.

Am I glad about losing 800 US service members each year? No.

[snip]

But to return to my original response, "skyrocketing" death toll is a shamelessly blatant and agenda-driven attempt to continue distorting perceptions of the war.

I wasn't conveying my "perception of the war", I was discussing a hypothetical future

scenario, muh-man. So while your statistics and sources are well and good, TypeO,..

your point is totally irrelevant to the hypothetical scenario that was being discussed.

The hypothetical scenario being discussed was: the POTUS decides to keep troops in Iraq contrary to the (sovereign) wishes of the Iraqi PM and the Iraqi parliament. Get it? Under that hypothetical scenario, I think it's quite "realistic" to predict that the death toll of US troops in Iraq would "skyrocket" (ie, rise DRAMATICALLY) as Iraqi forces would turn against the no-longer-welcome-in-Iraq American occupiers and try to drive them out by force. They'd have no other choice as backing down and allowing an unwelcome American military presence would not be acceptable to them as they would (rightly) be perceived as being weak and lacking true sovereignty. If the Iraqi PM and parliament want a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, they will get it.. or they will drive US forces out by force. ..and the death toll of US troops will.. unfortunately but undoubtedly.. skyrocket.

You know.. hypothetically speaking.

Capisca?

""skyrocketing" death toll is a shamelessly blatant and agenda-

driven attempt to continue distorting perceptions of the war."

For a guy who likes to preach about "objectivity", TypeO,..

..it sure seems like you've lost yours here, muh-man.

[TypeO]

You know.. hypothetically speaking.

ahhh, I get it.

Just wishful thinking.

Wouldn't it be great if the Liberal Propaganda Outlets Evening News had some REAL numbers to add to the old death toll every night?

Kinda funny how their hierarchy goes with regard to reporting deaths.

US Soldiers - the more the better more effective.

Iraqis - WHAT? No soldiers died??? Then how many civilians died? RUN IT!!!

[Hermit_]

Hey boys,.. be sure you watch Obama's speech today; you might learn sumthin.

btw..

I wonder what McCain's pander/lie/mistake/memory lapse du jour will be today?

[cryingbluerain]

That's quite humorous I must say. Almost as funny as this:

[Hermit_]

That's quite humorous I must say. Almost as funny as this:

What's really funny is that you don't seem to get it

that that New Yorker cover is mocking people like.. you.

[cryingbluerain]

What's really funny is that you don't seem to get it

that that New Yorker cover is mocking people like.. you.

Mock people like me? The Obama campaign doesn't seem to find it a laughing matter..

Obama campaign outraged by New Yorker cover

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree,"

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jLHK-P...t7gKj_ZmWfy4V2Q

About as tasteless and offensive as your pic of McCain using a walker I would say..

[Hermit_]

Mock people like me?

Yes,.. people like you. The cover cartoon (titled "The Politics of Fear") is a commentary on republican fear-and-smear tactics... tactics that work on intellectually shallow people like you (and Pb, and P-51).. who have been fooled by the republican lie-based fear-and-smear caricatures of the Obama's.. as depicted on that cover.

Apparently the purpose and meaning of the New Yorker

cover went flying by.. you know, right over your head, eh?

The Obama campaign doesn't seem to find it a laughing matter..

I don't blame them.

What makes the Obama cartoon "not a laughing matter" to the Obama's is the fact that.. satire or no satire.. they are NOT (nor have they ever been) what they are depicted as being in the cartoon. They are not terrorists; Barack is not a Muslim; Michelle is not a militant revolutionary; they do not admire OBL; and they would not burn the American flag.

Despite the fact that the Obamas surely do get the satirical intent of the cover, they're also aware that many people *ahem* won't get the satirical intent of it.. ie, they won't see it as a commentary on republican fear-and-smear tactics and the people *ahem* who are gullible enough to be fooled by those tactics.. but instead for those *ahem* people it will merely reinforce their mistaken (lie-based) beliefs about the Obamas.

I do get the satire of the cover, but like the Obamas I don't think it's a particularly funny cartoon. What I DO think is funny, though, is you posting that picture in this thread as though it's a slam on the Obamas and not at all getting that it's actually a slam on people like YOU and the political party that manipulates you like the fearful little pawn that you are.

..and apparently you still don't get it.

About as tasteless and offensive as your pic of McCain using a walker I would say..

A picture of McCain as an old man in a bathrobe and

slippers using a walker is.. "tasteless and offensive"?

uhh..

You slay me, WBR. Here, muh-man,.. allow me to dumb it down explain it to you in terms

you might be able to understand: John McCain IS what my caricature depicts him as: OLD.

caricature: n.

* a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking

characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

My depiction of McCain exaggerates.. for comedic political effect..

a certain striking characteristic about him: he is old.

satire: n

* the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's

stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

The New Yorker cover is a satire piece ridiculing, exposing and criticizing certain *ahem* peoples' stupidity. It does so by way of depicting a caricature of the Obamas that is not based any real characteristics of the Obamas, but rather is based on lies repeatedly told about the Obamas by the republican fear-and-smear machine... lies that people like you believe.

It's a very clever satire.. perhaps even too clever by half.., and it's certainly understandable that the Obama's would be offended by it. On the other hand, the fact that McCain IS old is surely no secret to McCain. He knows he's old. He jokes about it himself. So why then would he be "offended" by a caricature of him as an old man?

“I ask you, what should we be looking for in our next president?

Certainly, someone who is very, very, very old.”

“Controlling government spending isn’t just about Republicans or Democrats,.. it’s about being able to look your children in the eye. Or in my case, my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-grandchildren, the youngest of whom are nearing retirement.”

“I have the courage, the wisdom, the experience and, most importantly, the oldness necessary. The oldness it takes to protect America, to honor her, love her and tell her about what cute things the cat did.”

Do..you..get..it..yet?

[Hermit_]

Thanks for the post. Without a doubt, one of the most successfull wars of all time. If a democrat was in office that is what you would be hearing. But, little minds believe what they are TOLD to believe from the media and the "cool" Hollywood type's.

success: n.

* the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.

If the war is a "success" [],.. and thus our mission is "accomplished" [],..

..then that means our troops can come home now,.. eh, Pee-51?

Or does bringing troops home after "one of the most

successful wars of all time" amount to.. "surrendering"?

If the Iraq war is "one of the most successful wars of all time", then why on earth would US troops need to stay there indefinitely.. contrary to the Iraqi Prime Minister's and the Iraqi parliament's sovereign wish that US troops withdraw according to a timetable?

"Success" in Iraq.. as defined by Barack Obama:

..

George Bush and John McCain don’t have a strategy for success in Iraq – they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government – not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq’s borders.

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: 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 – one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy – that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq’s future – one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union – because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollar.

..

[excerpt from Barack Obama's "A New Strategy for a New World" speech; Jul 15th, 2008]

[Hermit_]

I see the Obama spin machine is in full throttle. AGAIN. Get a life. Talk about Plant and Zeppelin. How can anyone be so devoted to a man that has proven nothing so far? I don't get it Kermit? And I would rather read the Wall Street Journal from front to back than these long drawn out pro Obama, spin propoganda posts. I would need a shot of crystal meth to read one of them.

Yeah,.. cuz talking "about Page and Zeppelin" is what's important.

..waaay moreso than discussing the election of the next POTUS.

..right?

I hope you're not too disappointed to learn that I truly

don't care.. at all.. whether or not you read my posts.

[Hermit_]

Who cares about another paste that you have posted from the Obama web site? I could paste things from the McCain website, but as you are finding out, people around here are getting sick of it. They can go to these Candidates web site's themselves if they want too.

Republicans/McCain supporters are getting sick of it.

Which would bother me.. why?

[FYI.. that speech excerpt didn't come from the Obama website, muh-man.

Afterall, it is "news" ya know.. it's available from plenty of different sources. ]

But kermit, why do you keep avoiding my questions about Obama's Rev. that he admired and went to for over 20 years. The one that has made a career out of talking anti American hate and putting down other races?

You're not paying attention, Pee-man,

I already addressed your insignificant point. -->

I didn't avoid it, I ignored it.. because it's irrelevant at this point. It's old news. I'd even go so far as to say that as an issue it's more stale than a 71 year old cracker (you know.. a saltine). Obama jettisoned Wright long ago and he and his family left that church. End of story, muh-man.

Now then,.. how's about you address the issue of McCain's pervasive pattern of shameless pandering, lying, and his remarkably frequent lapses in memory.. lapses that are happening so frequently (did you see that today he indicated that he believes Czechoslovakia is still a nation?) that they raise legitimate questions about his mental fitness to be POTUS.

Go ahead *Rev Tutu*.. the floor's all yours.

oh, btw,., did you see McCain's Memory Lapse/Mistake du jour today?

He did a reprise of yesterday's "Czechoslovakia" gaffe.

*McCain Keeps Mentioning Country That Hasnt Existed Since 1992*

D'oh!

[Hermit_]

Your turn to answer a few questions, Pee-man.

You called the Iraq war "one of the most succesful wars of all time".

So then.. what say you, muh-man? -->

success: n.

* the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.

If the war is a "success" [],.. and thus our mission is "accomplished" [],..

..then that means our troops can come home now,.. eh, Pee-51?

Or does bringing troops home after "one of the most

successful wars of all time" amount to.. "surrendering"?

If the Iraq war is "one of the most successful wars of all time", then why on earth would US troops need to stay there indefinitely.. contrary to the Iraqi Prime Minister's and the Iraqi parliament's sovereign wish that US troops withdraw according to a timetable?

[Hermit_]

Obama, trying to act like a conservative now. Sure comes off as phony.

Suggestion: stop gobbling down every talking point

morsel that Rush Limbaugh tosses your way.

..or do you actually enjoy playing the role of the willing dupe?

Another suggestion: send John McCain an email and alert him

to the fact that Czechoslovakia.. you know.. no longer exists.

Oh wait,.. John "Stuck in the Past" McCain doesn't know how to use email yet.

..maybe you can tap him out a morse code mesage on a telegragh machine, eh?

[Katuschka]

McCain....scares me.