Comments on: McCain: Iraq War Was For Oil

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:37:23 +0000

Sure an active force in Japan and Germany aren’t the same as Iraq, but McNovovcain fails to point out that our presence there was a condition of their surrender. Apple? Meet Orange.

By: buma

buma — Sun, 04 May 2008 12:48:12 +0000

There is no realistic scenario in which McCain would have us leave Iraq. ‘After the US wins’ is a fairy tale. ‘When the Iraqis stand up we’ll stand down’ ain’t gonna happen. And McCain has said a 100-year occupation is OK by him. He has every intention of keeeping the occupation going indefinitely, dispensed in six-month increments for twenty-nine percenters like jay.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:57:40 +0000

Wow, Jay. So McCain thinks we “COULD” stay in Iraq for 100 years whether we “SHOULD” or not? I guess that goes back to the whole no fucking valid reason to invade in the first place, and the senseless continuing occupation.

The fact is McCain wants more troops and wants to waste more money on Iraq. Nowhere does he talk about leaving Iraq. If we can’t leave until the situation stabilizes, and if the situation stabilizes we could stay for 100 years… 100 years would be the minimum. He gives alot of numbers about staying: 10 years, 12 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, even 1 million years. It’s not like he says: “if or when the situation stabilizes, I will bring the troops home.” McCain is of the Bush occupy and dominate forever school. Admit it.

By: z_adura

z_adura — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:24:03 +0000

Jay, if you wait long enough McCain will say something else that appeals to us or appeals to you; he’s that inconsistent in his rhetoric. He either doesn’t mean any of it, which is pretty typical for a cynical Washington insider, or he means all of it, which means he doesn’t have the mental fortitude for this important office.

Look, I can understand that you’re trying to put perfume on a pig. If you guys had supported someone of competence in 20 years, you would have an argument. Instead, it’s been doddering old men and dipshits. In this election, the Republicans went for both.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:05:28 +0000

It’s actually the first part of that that I find more interesting.

Me too, Sean. And they say Barack ain’t got no plan.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:26:33 +0000

Midderpidge, grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word ’should’ and the word ‘could.’ Here’s a hint: They don’t mean the same thing and in the context of what McCain said, it makes a world of difference.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:54:27 +0000

Also, did anybody catch the Liberal Media rightly skewering McCain for his recent policy speech in which he called for unilaterally expelling Russia from the G8?

No? Nobody caught that? I swear it was all over the mainstream, liberal media.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:15:52 +0000

So Jay, when McCain’s plan is to up the number of troops we have in Iraq, he means to not stay there. So when McCain bases his whole Iraq plan on his premise that the US cannot leave Iraq until peace is established, he doesn’t mean it. Then when he says we could stay there 100 years if peace is established he means something else.

Of course, McCain says alot of things he doesn’t mean. Like he has an energy policy or health care plan. Or that he’s for campaign finance reform or public financing of campaigns. Hell, in the latter, he’ll even pass laws that he won’t follow.

Yes, McCain said we could stay in Iraq for 100 years. He was pandering to a pro-Bush, pro-Iraq invasion group of 29%ers. He just doesn’t think that things he said trying to appear to be the Bush candidate while securing the nomination should be held against him when trying to win over the rest of the Bush hating country.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 03 May 2008 11:44:46 +0000

like he said we should stay in Iraq for at least 100 years

It’s not conservatives who claim he didn’t say this. It’s anybody with functioning brain activity who knows he didn’t say it.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Sat, 03 May 2008 08:51:07 +0000

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

It’s actually the first part of that that I find more interesting.

OK, Johnny. Tell us the details of this plan that will not reduce, not lessen, but eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil. And when exactly will you have this plan?