Obama: McCain ‘fails to understand’ consequences of war in Iraq

March 19, 2008

On Monday, Hillary Clinton gave a big speech on Iraq in DC, hitting John McCain for supporting the Bush policy, and hitting Barack Obama for not having done more to stop the Bush policy.

Today, speaking in North Carolina, Obama gave his big Iraq speech, coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the start of the war. (I can’t find a video of the remarks, but the prepared text is online.)

“Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a Commander-in-chief test — not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington,” Mr. Obama said in speech, adding: “But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country — a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions.” […]

“Senator Clinton, Senator McCain and President Bush have made the same arguments against my position on diplomacy – as if reading from the same political playbook,” Mr. Obama said. “They say I’ll be penciling the world’s dictators on to my social calendar, but just as they are misrepresenting my position, they are mistaken in standing up for a policy of not talking that is not working.”

Perhaps most notably, Obama went after McCain’s big gaffe: “Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties,” Obama said. “Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.”

Good. I get the criticism of Clinton, mainly in response to Clinton’s criticism of him earlier this week, but as I’ve said umpteen times, the more these two go after McCain, the better. This is all the more important when McCain gives them a golden opportunity — such as repeatedly screwing up the basics of Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda.

One more section of note: Obama addressed the question of how to go up against McCain in a general election.

“It is time to have a debate with John McCain about the future of our national security. And the way to win that debate is not to compete with John McCain over who has more experience in Washington, because that’s a contest that he’ll win. The way to win a debate with John McCain is not to talk, and act, and vote like him on national security, because then we all lose.

“The way to win that debate and to keep America safe is to offer a clear contrast, and that’s what I will do when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party – because since before this war in Iraq began, I have made different judgments, I have a different vision, and I will offer a clean break from the failed policies and politics of the past.”

We discussed this point in some detail a couple of weeks ago, but Obama’s argument sounds about right. Clinton’s emphasis on experience seems like a short-sighted strategy, intended to knock down Obama, but ultimately making it easier for McCain.

In either case, I imagine Obama enjoys the change of subject — talking about a misguided Iraq policy beats talking about Jeremiah Wright any day.

The whole speech is quite fascinating. But here are two of my favorite parts:

It is precisely this kind of political point-scoring that has opened up the security gap in this country. We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually goes. What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3AM phone calls. What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances, and renewing our engagement with the world’s people.

This is why the judgment that matters most on Iraq – and on any decision to deploy military force – is the judgment made first. If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss – tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That’s why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue – as he did last year – that we couldn’t leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can’t leave Iraq because violence is down.

  • This is the way, the only way, Obama can win. He has to make a powerful distinction between himself and his two rivals. His very sane voice is a breath of fresh air for someone like me, and older white woman, who has been waiting for sanity to return to the Democratic party, since the days of LBJ.

    Obama’s greatest strength is his ability to speak the truth with great ease and grace. As long as he does not compromise, he will prevail.

  • To Obama’s credit, in some ways the fact that the nomination is coming down to the superdelegates seems to have focused his thinking. I read yesterdays speech, and the quoted portions here of today’s speech, and I can’t help but think these speeches are aimed largely at the undecided Supers (and moreover that they are likely striking important chords among that group).

  • I wanted to watch Obama’s talk. It was pre-empted by our Lame-Duck Leader, the Shrub’s boring recitation of his own party line. As with everything else in his sorry life, he’s walking away from a disaster of his own making, unaware of (or just not caring about) the fact that everyone knows he’s a pathetic asshole.

    Thanks for posting the text. Maybe later we can finally watch it through the “Side Stream Media” over on YouTube.

    I’m glad Obama’s going after GrandPa McCain, especially on his ignorance of the Shi’a/Sunni split.

  • Perhaps most notably, Obama went after McCain’s big gaffe: It’s funny how conservatives are accused of being closet reincarnations of Josef Goebbels since we keep telling the same lie so often that eventually it becomes the truth. Of course, this is incorrect. It’s already been shown that Iran and Al Qaeda have worked together for at least 10 years (the Iranian government has been implicated in the 1998 Embassy bombings in the indictment of Osama bin Laden). It is obvious Obama doesn’t remember that. Nor do others. Time to forget the idea that McCain made any kind of gaffe.

  • “a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions.”

    While Hillary and McCain seem honor-bound to continue the same dialogue and attitudes about Iraq, war in general and our national security that we had prior to the 2004 elections, Barack is avoiding those pitfalls. The Bushies never pursued or developed a strategy that would “win” anything other than their own reelections. The solution is admit what failed in the past and come up with new strategies and approaches that succeed at accomplishing something of substance. McCain and Clinton, it appears, are only willing to take steps that won’t prove how wrong they were in years past. McCain in particular views more war as an ego salvage mission for himself. That’s not good for us, our troops or for peace in Iraq.

  • This speech was an effort to distract us from Reverand Wright, I welcome the distraction as it does tend to make us remember what ALL democrats believe, but regardless a distraction nevertheless.

  • Stewell

    Hey tool, you are conflating Iran and Iraq again. The ISG and the latest Miitary study said it best, there were no ties to Al Queda. Sadamm a Sunni would never ever give weapons to a Shia who would use thme against him. You sir are a moron!!! I guess your like Grandpa McSame (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran) Iran has never attacked us. We shot down an Iranian Passenger Jet on July 3rd 1988. Go ahead and keep repeating the lie Irans a threat, Irans a threat. Not true, but hey IOKIYAR.

  • SteveIL: Time to forget the idea that McCain made any kind of gaffe.

    Why don’t you go tell McCain and leave us alone? He might not like the education you give him, but he’d appreciate it more than we do.

  • Hell of a speech, I thought. Kevin Drum flagged an especially nice part:

    “Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have made the same arguments against my position on diplomacy, as if reading from the same political playbook. They say I’ll be penciling the world’s dictators on to my social calendar. But just as they are misrepresenting my position, they are mistaken in standing up for a policy of not talking that is not working. What I’ve said is that we cannot seize opportunities to resolve our problems unless we create them. That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev. And that is what I will do as President of the United States.”

    As Drum noted, it’s a shrewd way of linking together tough-minded foreign policy leaders and the policy of negotiation and engagement.

    Rick Perlstein had a great column back when the right-win had their panties in a wad over Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University, pointing out that great countries like ours don’t run and hide from foreign thugs. When Khrushchev visited here in the ’50s, Eisenhower rolled out the red carpet and rose above it all.

    Christ, I can’t wait to get a grown-up in charge of our foreign policy again.

  • Well its pretty hard to understand anything when your first priority is to find a bathroom before your incontinent bowels burst open and your second priority is to have someone wipe the drool off your lips.

    This nation does not need another cognitively disabled pResident (the repugs/neocons prefered choice), however, with the help of the MSM media and dishonest voting systems, they can steal this one for mclame.

  • SteveIL, you seem to think that just referring to a 157-page indictment proves your view of the world is correct. You clearly don’t hang around here enough to understand that people here will actually look at it.

    1) The indictment alleges that UBL approached various other Islamic terror groups and their sponsors, including representatives of the clerical “uber government” of Iraq, to try and strike deals to join forces (see pp 7, 14, 15). Nowhere does the indictment say that Iran ever agreed or responded favorably.

    2) An indictment, as anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of the law knows (and this excluded Edwin “If they’re suspects they must be guilty” Meese), nothing in the indictment has ever been proven. It is the prosecution’s theory of the case, nothing more.

    3) This indictment was drafted and filed after Bush took office, by his prosecuting attorney – like we should be shocked that it reflects and reinforces the same political spin and outright errors Bush, Cheney, et al put forth? That would be like me arguing “Of course I’m right – look at how many posts agree with me!” and then listing a bunch of my own previous posts. Except in my case, that would make more sense because as it turns out I am right.

    In short, SteveIL, your circular argument proves nothing, and the document you rely on doesn’t say anything close to what you claim.

    Try again in a few years.

  • A CNN speaker just used the “D” word (depression – relating to housing starts and people buying houses right now and that in that respect we are in the D level, no longer the R level) and that the government needs to act quickly.

    I want to hear Obama and Clinton speak about that.

    The war is but one major problem concerning us (and it, too, plays a huge part into our economic woes).

    I hear too much about what was (and yes, what will be) relating to the war. I would like more economic ideas. The existing (supply side) ones are not working.

  • Counsel, great post!

    The sad fact is that Greg is always going to have the opinion that Obama is a n.i. double ger and that SteveIL is a gooper apologist.

    As sad as it is (for each of them), nothing that is said will change that.

    But it’s good to see such a well stated slap down to an apologist.

    Thanks!

  • I’m not sure I want the government acting “quickly” on any of this, because they tend toward knee-jerk actions that are as likely to make things worse rather than better.

    When a big part of the problem was triggered by over-extended home mortgages and unsound mortgage lending practices, does it really make sense to relax the capital requirements that help secure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    When loose credit helped get us into this mess, and everyday Americans when polled (likely in light of their gasoline expenses) say their #1 economic fear is inflation, does it make sense to continue to make it easier to borrow through interest rate reductions that add inflationary pressures?

    Come to think of it, I’m not sure I want the Bush Cabal of Incompetents trying to solve any of this. Leave it for the reality-based administration to come. (And in the meantime run lots and lots of ads featuring McCain saying “I don’t know as much about economics as I should. . .”)

  • What’s interesting is that Hillary is now attacking Obama on not ruling out the use of military contractors in Iraq.

    This, despite Obama being way ahead of Hillary on the issue. Also it’s as if we don’t know Mark Penn’s company represents Blackwater.

    Hillary is truly running out of ideas here.

  • Greg, how is Reverend Wright not a distraction from the REAL issues Americans face? Is persecuting Reverend Wright going to get the economy out of the tank? Is it going to get us out of Iraq? Is it going to fix the broken public education system? I don’t care about Reverend Wright and I’m tired of people like you bringing him up. He’s a pastor who said imprudent things, who hasn’t? You just want to focus on him to tear down a remarkable politician. I’m tired of small minded, petty people like you. Grow up!

  • Time to forget the idea that McCain made any kind of gaffe.

    Um, Stevie, if it wasn’t a gaffe, then why did his campaign release a statement saying he “misspoke and immediately corrected himself.”

    Or are the rubes working his campaign just not in the know?

    But I know you conservatives get all upset and confused by facts so I’ll let you slide on this one…

  • The sad fact is that Greg is always going to have the opinion that Obama is a n.i. double ger – MsJoanne #16

    I would not use such inflammatory language toward anybody, and frankly I don’t tolerate it much myself because I have black people in my immediate family (brother-in-law) and three beautiful mixed nieces.

    My intolerence of hateful racism goes both ways, and includes disgust for Reverand Wright’s words.

    Don’t try to label me, I am much too complex to be over-simplified, much like your idol Obama, whom I have never criticized for what he is, but rather for what he stands for.

  • My Friend @ 19

    You miss the point, I am not talking about persecuting Jeremiah Wright, his hateful messages are only part of the problem, the bigger problem is that Obama gave this man that he knew would cause controversy an influential advisory role in his campaign. He also knew there were video’s which would surface, yet he continued forward with this man as a key player in his campaign.

    Sheesh, and all I said was that this was a welcome distraction from Rev. Wright.. I can’t catch a break 🙂

  • #21 complex Greg: good for you and your mixed nieces.

    ” welcome the distraction as it does tend to make us remember what ALL democrats believe”

    What exactly did it “make you remember”, that McCain & his neocon buddies have been wrong on Iraq every step of the way, and that Americans are ready for a change in leadership?

  • Senator Clinton, Senator McCain and President Bush

    In one sweet phrase—seven little words spoken in the confines of two or three seconds—Obama has effectively isolated his triad of troubles into one small box, and simultaneously demonstrated out-of-the-box thinking.

    This, people, is how you not only win an election, but win a mandate to govern. He took a backpedaling moment (the Wright stuff) and turned it into a national discussion on race in America. He takes all of the status-quo talking points, wields them like a weapon, and simultaneously smacks down Daddy (Bu$h), Junior (McCain), and the holier-than-thou Triangulating banshee (she-whom-we-do-not-name).

  • Not to sound like a Floridian complaining about the delegate situation, but. . .

    and the holier-than-thou Triangulating banshee (she-whose supporters we will need to be an excited, active check-writing part of the team to win this fall and so we shouldn’t go out of our way to p*ss offm-we-do-not-name).

    There. Fixed it for you, Steve.

  • Greg and I don’t really see eye to eye very often, but I have to say that MsJoanne’s “n.i. double ger” comment is way out of line and totally offensive. I feal the need to appologize to Greg and I didn’t even say it.

    Can we all please get back to discussing issues?

  • It is obvious Obama doesn’t remember that. Nor do others. Time to forget the idea that McCain made any kind of gaffe.

    I guess Joe Lieberman, who corrected McCain on the spot and in public, wasn’t aware of this either, Steve.

    You must be remembering something no one else does. Maybe you are misremembering.

  • I offended? Read Greg’s posts over the last several weeks (I read them EVERY DAY) and tell me that he is not racist.

    Obama is not my idol. The democratic party is.

    And I stand by what I said. While he may not have used the N word, he certainly has done nothing but spout racist crap about Obama. Feel free to go back over the last several weeks of posts and read all of his comments, as I have been doing.

    If you think I am wrong, I apologize. I do not apologize for calling Greg as I see him. Sorry.

  • Don’t try to label me, I am much too complex to be over-simplified…

    Isn’t that just another way of admitting you are an a$$hole?

  • Greg @7 – Everything is about Wright, isn’t it. From now until Obama finishes his second term in 2016, you will insist that Obama is distracting from Wright. Barack could be warning us of an alien invasion from Mars and you”d just cite Rev. Wright again and how Obama won’t retire from politics because he associated with this one man.

    This is pathetic. Just like the Republicans did against the Clintons, you dig for the strongest attack you can find and continue to repeat it endlessly until you find something better to attack with; hoping desperately that you’ll finally find something real to attack him with. It’s reached the point that after reading every Carpetbagger post, I scan down looking for whatever absurd Obama hating comment you write, so I can get a big laugh out of it. You have destroyed all your credibility and are little more than a silly joke for us to play with.

    I’m not sure why you imagine you’re helping Hillary with this noise, but you’re not. Again, this all reminds me of the rabid anti-Clinton people who continued to push Bill’s approval ratings higher and higher with each lame attack. But I guess I’m just distracting from Wright again.

  • MsJoanne,

    As I said, Greg and I do not agree on much, but what you said was about as inflamatory as it gets. Whether or not Greg has made racist statements isn’t the point of my last comment. Throwing it back at Greg (or anyone else), however, is.

    Please, please, please, let’s all turn down the dial a notch or two. Let’s talk about the economy or the war or how we are going to pay for college. Let’s not decend into petty name calling.

    The simple fact is that if we aren’t careful and respectful we are in danger of splintering the Democratic Party and destroying a grand opportunity.

  • Independent, I apologize. There are certain things and certain people that have a way of truly getting under my skin. I do not tend to be divisive in terms of our party (please see comment 57 here ; the last part specifically talks about the key things we need to consider moving forward.

    I am disgusted by someone like Greg who says he is a Clinton supporter but never really does support her yet rails on and on and on ad nauseum about Obama (long before the whole Wright thing) with overtones which progressively get more and more and more racist as the days go on. Wright just gave him added momentum. And it sickened me more and more as each day went on. I do not tolerate racist statements or inference and he has continued to use them.

    And to anyone I offended with my poor attempt at stylizing a horrible phrase (I don’t think “the N word” is any more or less offensive than saying the word itself, for it is the meaning behind all of them), I sincerely apologize.

    p.s. If my link above doesn’t work (I am still trying to learn how to do an href properly, here’s the link: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14937.html

    And with that, I am off this thread.

  • Pingback: The Most Dangerous Man In The Field » Comments from Left Field

  • Counsel, there are others. Capt. Kirk, I wouldn’t doubt that I know more about the Middle East than Obama. McCain will clean his clock in a debate on any of it, Iraq included.

  • SteveIL,

    Oh, man, you do make me laugh. You know more about Iraq than Obama?

    I’d like to see that demonstrated, since what you have demonstrated time after time here is a profound lack of reading comprehension. I strongly suspect that the “others” you might cite will, upon examination, turn out not to say what you think.

    I don’t even think you know as much about Iraq as McCain seems to, as evidenced by your recent attempt to misread the recent report on connections between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.

  • I’ve said umpteen times, the more these two go after McCain, the better.

    I agree fully and it’s too bad the campaigns can’t figure out that “contrasting”(ie attacking) McCain is where winning in Nov lies, regardless of which one of them wins the nomination. Rather than a daily hack-and-slash against each other, do a one rail bank shot telling voters how McCain is wrong and how your plan will make it all right and is better than your opponent’s plan. It doesn’t wind up as a direct attack that way.

    I want to see the animosity between the Clinton/Obama supporters directed at McCain rather than each other.

  • Charles, I just read Obama’s speech on Iraq from yesterday. You have to give the man credit, he knows how to write a good speech. Good thing there are things like transcripts to rip them apart afterwards. You should see my take on his race speech (no, I won’t do that here).

    There was not any evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, or that Iraq had operational ties to the al Qaeda terrorists who carried them out.

    I’ll bet the highlighted word wasn’t in there when he was writing his speech, and that he added that in after that Pentagon report came out. It probably killed him to have to say it because adding the word “operational” changes the meaning of the phrase “no ties”, and implies other ties that did exist. And once examined, it is those ties, along with a whole host of other things, that truly justify going after Saddam Hussein.

    That’s what I did when I stood up and opposed this war from the start,…

    Big deal. What could he have done to show he “stood up”? Unlike McCain, Clinton, and Bush, Obama didn’t actually have to make a decision on the war since he was sitting cozily in Springfield, IL as a state senator (one who was benefiting from having Democrat Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones rewriting bills, even old ones, to put Obama as the sponsor of those bills, whether Obama knew they existed or not), not a United States Senator. He didn’t have to know what was going on. He didn’t have any kind of security clearance to read the intelligence data that other members of Congress had. He can say there isn’t any evidence now, 6 years after the fact; but intelligence data isn’t the same as evidence, and that is what McCain, Clinton, Bush, and the rest of Congress and the administration had to go on. The sentence from Obama that I put up is pointless and only meant for the appeasers.

    My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future.

    Obama needs to stop reading the lefty playbook. Iraq is already doing that (the Iraqi government passed a reconciliation law yesterday before Obama’s speech, which, by the way, is nowhere to be found on CB; link here:http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iraq/idUSL1926004520080319), thanks to the troops being there, and thanks to pressure already being applied by the current administration (which, by the way, is not running for re-election).

    Based on what Obama says publicly, I think I can safely say I know more about Iraq than Obama does. And I’m sure McCain knows more about it, even with his “gaffe”.

  • SteveIL,

    And, once again, you demonstrate your lack of comprehension.

    1. On “ties” — what, precisely, does “ties” mean, if you drop the “operational”? There are a lot closer “ties” between the Carlyle Group and Al Qaeda than there were between Saddam’s Iraq and AQ. For that matter, Saudi Arabia has the most “ties” of all with AQ. Obama spoke accurately.

    2. That new “law” — wasn’t “passed” by the “Iraqi government”. The Iraqi “Council of Presidents” removed its opposition to the law, allowing the law to move to the next step in someday becoming a law (although they’re planning to “amend it”). You illustrate, every time you come here, that you a) have abysmal reading comprehension and b) have little understanding of the byzantine compromise that is occupied Iraq.

    You couldn’t, apparently, get through 5th grade Social Studies, yet you seem to think you have understanding better than a man whose thoughtfulness and understanding are evident in every speech. I’m forced to conclude that you are still delusional.

  • Charles, you can put away the Karl Marx books. Nobody in full faculty of their minds (which doesn’t include anybody who has ever believed in the philosophy of Karl Marx) would equate “the Carlyle Group” with the absolute dictator, the government, of Iraq. Nobody. As far as Saudi Arabia, I’m no big fan of them; but the reality is members of both parties suck up to them, and have for decades. It wouldn’t change under a “President Obama”. That argument is immaterial considering the political realities.

    That new “law” — wasn’t “passed” by the “Iraqi government”. The Iraqi “Council of Presidents” removed its opposition to the law, allowing the law to move to the next step in someday becoming a law (although they’re planning to “amend it”). Technicalities. It can, in fact, move forward. The issue is that Obama completely ignored this even though it happened before he gave his speech. That government is moving forward. So quit moving the bar when reality goes against the “spin” from Obama.

    You couldn’t, apparently, get through 5th grade Social Studies, yet you seem to think you have understanding better than a man whose thoughtfulness and understanding are evident in every speech. Thoughtfulness? Crap. I read that speech on race. The “thoughtfulness” that he tried to portray manifested itself as the usual nanny-state anti-capitalism he believes in, blaming the racial divide on those deluded into believing in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. And did you see where he relegated the one event that allowed slavery to end? He referred to it as “a civil war”, and nothing further was mentioned about it. Nothing about the 40,000 black soldiers who died in it. Nothing about the 320,000 white Union soldiers who died in it, regardless of whether or not they believed that slavery should be abolished. Don’t tell me; he would have supported the soldiers but not the mission, right? Add that Obama, like Wright and all of the other “liberal” race-baiters, refer to “white racism”, not “some white racism”, not racism based on the policies implemented by “some whites”, nor any hint that Wright is in fact a racist. Nope, just “white racism”. Do you think this “white racism” extends to those 320,000 whites who died to make blacks free from being slaves? Thoughtfulness? I think not.

  • SteveIL,

    I love your use of stock phrases when cornered.

    The “argument” I gave was to point out that, absent the “operational”, “ties” means precisely squat. You didn’t (and couldn’t) counter that so you gave out “That argument is immaterial considering the political realities.” I just love that. It sounds so profound, yet means nothing here.

    As for the Iraqi “law” (that you claimed was passed, but wasn’t) — it wasn’t me that “moved the goalposts”. Let’s see (searching for an analogy…) The US House recently passed a bill on FISA reform.) It must now go on to a conference committee, then be passed by both houses, signed by the President — but, using your logic, all that is “technicalities.” Good to know.

    And your incoherent little diatribe about “the speech on race” — priceless. Off topic, of course, but hilarious. Let me just say that, when you say “I think not” — truer words were never written.

  • #39 SteveIL

    Thanks much, I am using your comment (with the references to Karl Marx and the Civil war) to illustrate the definition of a logical “Non sequitur” in a text book that I am writing.

    The royalty check’s in the mail.

  • I love your use of stock phrases when cornered. I’m cornered? Thanks for telling me. Seriously, you haven’t cornered me once.

    The “argument” I gave was to point out that, absent the “operational”, “ties” means precisely squat. Uh-huh. Ohioan is going to use my arguments as a non sequiter. Charles, every point you made regarding “ties” is an endless non sequiter. That is unless you are saying that what Obama is saying is “precisely squat” (and I would agree; the man hasn’t said anything worth hearing since he began his run to the U.S. Senate four years ago); those “operational ties” were his words, not mine.

    As for the Iraqi “law” (that you claimed was passed, but wasn’t) — it wasn’t me that “moved the goalposts”. Let’s see (searching for an analogy…) Pick a better analogy; your’s isn’t valid.

    And your incoherent little diatribe about “the speech on race” — priceless. I was venting. But no way was Obama’s race speech “thoughtful”.

  • SteveIL,

    Please point out the non sequiturs in my logic. Also, argument by assertion doesn’t really compel belief — I know, you don’t really have much of a chance attempting to use logic or evidence, but you could at least try.

    And do, please, point why it is an “invalid analogy” to illustrate how laws are made in Iraq by discussing how they are made in the USA. The assumption here is that you understand how laws are made in the USA — that could be invalid, I suppose, but we need to start somewhere.

    Vent all you like. It’s highly amusing. I especially like the ones where you go off on the Democratic party.

    • Comments are closed.