McCain, in Denver, decries '100 years in Iraq' ads

Posted by SASQUATCH on May 2, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Protesters were assembling outside the center. Several members of a liberal activist group said earlier this week that they had gotten seats to today's meeting..."

Will Denver be give a sneak preview by these liberal insurgents of their planned August "R-68" jamboree? I would love to see our National Guard get in a little practices with water cannons, tear gas and tazers--they are going to need all the practice that they can get!

Posted by hikingartist on May 2, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a pleasant looking group.

Posted by Diff on May 2, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Man that is one unhappy looking bunch of people in the photo at the home page for this story.
Guess that could be because of the out look for McCain's election ..

Posted by dilligaf on May 2, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SASQUATCH:
Spoken like a true republican. Wanting to take away our right to assembly. Wants to wire tap our phones why not take that one two. Oh by the way WELCOME TO DENVER MCSAME!!

Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OLD, OLD, OLD. Same OLD cr*p from the Grand OLD Party. We need socialized health care in this country. If you are planning on dying of old age in the next four years, please vote with the rest of us in mind. Mcain could never be a two-term president and I doubt if four years will be enough to clean up the mess that the last seven and a half have created. Out with the OLD!

Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When you know your lies are not believed by the majority... you too would look miserable knowing your candidate will loose, no matter whom the opponent.

today I actually agree with Sasquach... Water cannon them so when you taze them. it will be more effectual, insofar as making them smile and express exuberance about their looser candidate, McSame.

Posted by tellmenow41 on May 2, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They used the JCC for this @$$ hat... come on. Well if he does get elected (which he wont) then the national guard will need that practice with the water cannon, when they go to Iraq to trade in those water pistols for actual guns... I mean after they reinstate the draft and strip us of any rights we previously had. But its ok, because this is part of the ongoing "war against terror" and is for the 'homeland security'. what a joke.

Posted by Earl on May 2, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah the socialist progressive liberals have their shorts up in a twist.
I do hope you get what you wish for and when it is total crap as it will be.................live with it. better start lining up at denver general for your dr appointment you need in 6 months as they will assign you one.

I did get my first govenment welfare check called social insecurity and it was almost enough to fill the gas tank. I dont know how to spend it all and to think I get it for paying in for over 50 years. Now I really do want free oil changes.

Posted by Charles_B on May 2, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's some of McBush 2.0's amazing military experience on display:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIrSN...

Posted by SASQUATCH on May 2, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...the socialist progressive liberals..."

AKA "INSURGENTS"...its shorter and very descriptive of their planned behavior. Al-Qaeda, "R-68" == insurgents! Just to make sure that there is no mistake what we can expect in Denver (New Fallujah) this August.

Mayhem...break out the water cannons and tear gas!

Posted by tellmenow41 on May 2, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd rather wait in a line at denver general than a line in an army barrack somewhere in iraq/iran/afghanistan/n korea.

as for my insecurity check, if youre smart enough you would've started to put away money in a 401k, so not too worried about that and we'll have enough time/money to fix that system once we stop spending $10-$15 billion a month in iraq.

Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do conservatives bitch about Social securitys existence. then cash the checks and bit_h about how low the amount...

just proves that they would never be happy under any circumstances.

Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yikes! SASQUATCH just showed the world that he is a "spongehead", computer programmer. ONLY someone that knows the C programming language would use "==" to indicate "equals". BTW, I'm a hardware puke. :-) However, I totally agree with SASQUATCH.

Scott

Posted by Spencer on May 2, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

from a Wahington Post discussion, some kind of "straight talk"

100 Years in Iraq: Jonathan, just continuing our convo about McCain from last week, I have some fodder you (and the chatters) might be interested in -- my question is, where is the "straight talker" I've heard so much about? After all, foreign policy is easy when you just make it up as you go along, isn't it? To wit: "In 2005, McCain decided Iraqis resent our military presence, so we should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment. He insisted that 'U.S. visibility' was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence -- positions held by both Obama and Clinton."

In 2006, McCain reversed course, and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence. In 2007, McCain reversed course again, saying the Korean analogy doesn't work and shouldn't be followed. "Eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws," McCain told Charlie Rose last fall. And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more.

Posted by nowhearthis on May 2, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure the National Guard is too busy getting killed in Iraq right now to worry about shooting water cannons.

Posted by jay on May 2, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

considering our national guard's decreased abilities due to the unnecessary war in iraq, do they even have the manpower to deal with the far right's dream of a large riot?

Posted by Charles_B on May 2, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only McBush 2.0 could complain that a commercial featuring a video of him speaking is a cheap shot.

Posted by NotChasB on May 2, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there really is no National Guard here to quell any leftwingnut anarchists disturbances, we can utilize our 2nd Amendment right and form a well regulated militia and kick some hippy wannabe behinds and other leftwingnuts that do not know how exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a peaceful and orderly manner. I haven't dropped a hippie since I got back from Vietnam in 1972.
Where do we law abiding consevatives sign up?

Posted by TC on May 2, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I heard Rumsfeld say it. Bust says it. McCain says it. They don’t know how long or how much the war in Iraq will cost. (Forever. Most expensive government program in history.) But they do know ‘It’s a war we cannot afford to lose.’ So what if it never ends. So what if the economy goes to hell from spending hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money for something that has no objective metric for success. So What? As Cheney says.

I don’t blame these guys. I blame the people that voted for them and now that Bush has done exactly what he said he would do, his poll numbers are at an all time low. Huh? What were you expecting?

Posted by I_Slay_The_Dragon on May 2, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because of my work/joy/Destiny, It is imperitive that I am staunchly Apolitical.
Still, if this "election" year could be described
in one (non)word? Misspoke. C'mon now, the word doesn't even
LOOK right! Remember, these are our "leaders" speaking. Sigh.

Posted by HolierThanThou on May 2, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with John McCain. As long as Americans can stay in Iraq without being harmed or killed, why not? Why not 100, 200, or 1000 years?

Of course, we're talking about tourists. Are we not?

Seems to me if you send our guys in there to chase young whipper-snappers down the alleys, shooting and bombing as they go, then tourism will be a non-starter.

I sure do wish John McCain would make up his mind and give us some straight talk about it.

Posted by Fact_Check on May 2, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain's genius on display:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIrSN...

Posted by gethoht on May 2, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's hilarious how quickly these boards resort to the conversational equivalent of poo flinging. Sasquatch: Insurgents... really, you want to compare the left to al qaeda? Do you have any concept of democracy? Or how about this country's history whatsoever? It's founded by "insurgents" you dolt, so maybe you should stop listening to rush limbaugh and pick up a history book.
Earl: "Socialist progressive liberals"??? Did you just push as many negative terms from the conservative lexicon as you could together? When I see talk about using national guard to shoot protesters with water cannons I think "Fascist". It's amazing how the modern right loves to promote the ideal of individual freedom, but anyone with a different viewpoint they want their police state to blast with water cannons.

Posted by NotChasB on May 2, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gethoht

Don't you find it hard to laugh with tight jaws when the truth about your group is so hard for you to swallow when it is rammed down your throat. You obviously can't see we are the ones ridiculing you with these comments and you are taking it so seriously. I take it you don't appreciate our sense of humor.
Too bad and by the way the joke turned out to be on you and self- inflicted without any help from us.
Poor Guy, "That's a joke son" we keep picthing them and you keep missing them!!

Posted by reddog on May 2, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pic looks like a funeral.

Posted by Cwillyrun1 on May 2, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know it's pretty sad commentary for people whose biggest concern is the way people look in a picture. Get a life losers!

Leave it to the Democrats to take something someone said and spin it out to where the message they're trying to portray is NOT the same as what was actually said. Why do we want a bunch of spin doctors in office? Do we really want Democrats to tell us what we want to hear only to do something else...... or just basically lie to us? Then again, the gullible people who voted for Ritter are getting what they deserve. Taxes, more taxes, union power, no real progress on improving the state.... despite all the talk, money from your pocket to the pockets of illegals or those who don't want to work. I think it's hypocritical of Democrats to complain about what Republicans are doing when they're the ones feeding us the garbage from the trash can.

By the way, getoht, your history classes failed you. This country was not founded by insurgents, or at least what your definition is of it. We didn't have a foreign power in control of our established country, we were a part of England at the time and the founders of this country were English subjects. This is what's called "Separatists", or as we know them, "Revolutionaries". There's a big difference between how our country was founded and what's going on in the middle east.

Posted by Cwillyrun1 on May 2, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what we have to look forward to with Democrats (Socialists) in power:

WINDFALL TAX ON RETIREMENT INCOME
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock
market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

This woman is frightening.

She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Hey, tellmenow, guess what happens when you vote Democrats in? That 401k you're bragging about...... some of that money will go to helping the poor in America and the illegal aliens that are here to have as good a life as you, whether they've worked for it or not. You have to love that one, don't you? HAHAHA

Posted by AC on May 2, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the photo os "supporters of McCain" waiting to get in. They look like death warmed over; they look angry and upset.

Posted by Cwillyrun1 on May 2, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey AC, think the cold air and it blowing in the face has anything to do with the looks on people's faces? Look in the mirror, you're no fashion model either, princess!

Posted by Diff on May 2, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that up happy crowed is still standing there, still un happy - but then what do they have to be happy about?

McCain said "I am prepared to say in Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes"
HE SAID IT!
what we expect the Dems to do during an election where the War in Iraq is one of the biggest issues?
I basicly like McCain for a Republican - at least he made some small stands agains the Bush White House, and he would actually be a better president that we have now.
But I won't be voting for him, I do hope he keeps his seat in the senate tho - we need the "balance" and he is at least a sane voice, even if he is on the other side of most issues for me.

Posted by Diff on May 2, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cwillyrun1
Chill out man - have a little fun for crying out load -
Oh yeah I for got republicans just can't stand any one having any fun ....
take about a LOOSER!

Posted by Golden on May 2, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If those were Dems waiting in line they would hae been asking for a federal investigation into why there were no heaters and shelter from the wind... They would have demanded something be done...

At a minimum they would be saying this cold wether on May 2nd was proof of Global warming.

Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cwillyrun1, nancy pelosi said no such thing. stop with the propaganda and rumor. The electorate is not buying it anymore.

or is it because you really cannot back up why we should elect mcSame.
only why we should Not elect Democrats. sad very sad.

Posted by Gene on May 2, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

. . only why we should NOT elect Democrats.

What a lot of dithering Democrats. McCain really points out the differences in a sound defense policy for the country vs. the pitiful Democrat response about anything related to the military or defense efforts.

Posted by thewayiseeit on May 2, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After reading this thread, I find a insurmountable levels of ignorance. We are so caught up in party politics, that common sense goes out the window. Liberals taking shots at Republicans, Republicans taking shots at Democrats. It's like people want to fight over this stuff.

Also, if people must fight... Why don't we argue with facts instead of doctrine? By reading over half the posts here, I can tell where most of you got your information because it is a regurgitation of either the democratic or republican party, a tv show, or a website. I read and watch all of these sources along with combining academic sources as well. My friend gets his evidence from tv shows, so I always know what his opinion is going to be... it is like clockwork.

I guess my frustration is that most of you are being brainwashed by someone else. I would prefer that when people debate, that you debate based on your own self instead of latching on to other people. Now look what is happening? You all are about to get into fist fights over this stuff. I am sure that if it were legal, you would. lol

Posted by Winski on May 2, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain is a LIAR. The ads are based ON HIS OWN WORDS. Watch the clip.

AND, he said today in your fair city that the last few years, costing between $1 and 6 TRILLION DOLLARS was about OIL ! Did your son or daughter die for his oil war?

Are you paying $.99 for your fill up? I don't think so. Some hero he is..Taking us again RIGHT DOWN THE TUBES like his favorite joined-at-the-hip buddy dubya.

Anyone that would listen to this dribble is as big a fool as McCain is.

Posted by GetReal on May 2, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As quoted verbatim from the article, McCain said:

"Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Now which part of this answer suggests McCain WANTS THE WAR to continue for 100 years?

All you libs insinuating this fallacy are sorely lacking any intellectual honesty.

He is talking about a post-war American presence, similar to that of Japan and Germany.

But you all knew that and chose to attack McCain anyway.

As usual,

Par for the dishonest Dem course.

Posted by hikingartist on May 2, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well how about we all get a little rest and everyone can resume being manipulated to squabble about events we have little or no bearing on some more tomorrow?
I am confident with a few hours sleep we can all return here tomorrow with a fresh take on our own short-sighted stubborn views.

Posted by Charles_B on May 3, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GetReal:

Your post amounts to wanting to have it both ways.

McCain says "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed".

He's also against withdrawing our forces from Iraq if the violence continues, correct?

His qualifier amounts to his wishful thinking that at some point our troops will not be subjected to attacks.

Back in the days after "Mission Accomplished" he gave a clear indication of his ignorance and lack of judgment in matters involving Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIrSN...

You asked:

"Now which part of this answer suggests McCain WANTS THE WAR to continue for 100 years?"

Nobody suggested that McCain wants the war to continue, GetReal. That's a red herring you toss out attempting to mitigate the damage to McCain that his own words will inevitably have.

Can you point me to a statement by McCain that indicates he will pull out if the violence continues in Iraq?

You can't. He says we're staying, period.

Do you believe the rosy scenarios that he's painting for Iraq? The same ones he's been painting since 2003 that have all been wrong? Answering "yes" here will indicate a level of extreme gullibility.

I'll be voting for someone who got it right and showed good judgment back when it counted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCc...

Posted by Charles_B on May 3, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy put McCain's policy in a nutshell:

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...

Posted by GetReal on May 3, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles,

I believe McCain is correct in thinking we should stay in Iraq with large troop numbers until it is stabilized but then after a draw-down an American presence would be wise- and yes, possibly even 100 years.

Or,

Let's just pull out like Obama wants and let Islamofascism fester unchecked, most likely resulting in another 911 or worse down the road.

Oh wait, that wont happen because, as you have inferred before, WE are the REAL ENEMIES, and Christianity is far worse than radical Islam.

Right?

Posted by jay on May 3, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I believe McCain is correct in thinking we should stay in Iraq with large troop numbers until it is stabilized"

interesting viewpoint...considering our best military minds have insisted for years that we went in with an inadequate number of troops and would need 300K+ or better to actually give iraq the stability needed to produce political progress.

so...we come back to the same place we've been for 6 years now. do we start the draft in order to give our troops in country the resources necessary for victory or do we continue to let them dangle in the sand box for the sake of the republican party's health? considering that the latest in a series of failed "surges" has once again failed to meet that goal...how long we continue failed policies while expecting different results? another 8 years according to you i suspect.

that's a tough one.

i'd love to get your thoughts on that getreal.

oh...and "Let's just pull out like Obama wants and let Islamofascism fester unchecked, most likely resulting in another 911 or worse down the road." is just laughably inaccurate. iraq had made us less safe and allowed aq (you know...the folks actually responsible for 9/11 and who are actually a threat to the US) to restrengthen to 9/10 levels.

that's your rush talking.

Posted by GetReal on May 3, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jay-

I agree we should have initially gone in with more troops, but disagree that a draft is needed.

The military meet their recruiting goals almost every year and any soldier will tell you they would rather have a guy that volunteered for service next to them than an unwilling draftee, which I'm sure there would be a lot of.

I also disagree with your assessment of the surge. It has shown to be successful overall and there is progress being made in Iraq, the MSM just doesn't prominently cover it. http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2007/...

If you really want to get an inside view go to embedded soldier Michael Yons blog and visit it often.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

I feel we were right in deposing Saddam for, among other reasons, he supported terrorism.
He was just one piece of a very large puzzle.

People need to understand the fight against Radical Islam is a global conflict. We must eradicate it wherever it rears its ugly head, and this worldwide war must be fought offensively and not defensively.

Concerning us being less safe, I believe going on seven years without an indigenous attack proves otherwise, and if the Dems would have stood behind their country in this time of conflict instead of bashing it to the joy of an international crowd, there would be less dead and Iraq would be further on its way to a stable Democracy and willing partner in the war on terror.

Another important factor to consider regarding the presence of US troops after a hopeful stabliztion is its strategically advantageous geographical location which would easier allow us to more effectively defeat the enemy. That is your goal also I hope.

BTW,

That's me talking, not Rush, and that's just what I believe to be common sense.

Posted by Charles_B on May 3, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I believe McCain is correct in thinking we should stay in Iraq with large troop numbers until it is stabilized.."

*Until Iraq is stabilized* being the key ingredient.

That's where you wishful thinking comes in.

What if Iraq remains just as violent ten years from now as it is today?

Is there any point at which you feel we should exit? McCain clearly doesn't believe there is.

He has also been frighteningly wrong in every prognostication of future success in Iraq he has made.

I don't trust his judgment.

Posted by Charles_B on May 3, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GetReal, this is you at your most disgusting:

"...if the Dems would have stood behind their country in this time of conflict instead of bashing it to the joy of an international crowd, there would be less dead and Iraq would be further on its way to a stable Democracy and willing partner in the war on terror."

Actually, GetReal, you are the one complicit in the needless loss of life in Iraq. You supported going in, and you support staying. It is evidence only of your aversion to accountability (part of what it is to be a "conservative" these days) that you would baselessly claim dissenting against our Iraq policy is causing our soldiers to die needlessly.

It's a projection of your guilt GetReal.

I'd be interested in you providing some cause/effect evidence that speaking out against the war has caused more soldiers to die.

Any scrap of evidence will be considered, but I doubt you can provide even that.

Why do you hate our troops GetReal?