Dems seize on McCain's Iran gaffe

[Gan]

(CNN) – The Democratic National Committee seized on John McCain's (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html) apparent gaffe while discussing Iran Tuesday, saying it raises questions whether the Arizona senator "can be trusted to offer a clear way forward."

The misstep in question occurred during a news conference in Jordan earlier Tuesday, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee repeatedly said Iran was supplying al Qaeda. Iran is predominately a Shiite country and is not aiding the Sunni dominated Al-Qaeda.

McCain ultimately corrected himself after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.

"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda. I am sorry," the Arizona senator said.

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney quickly pounced on the misstep.

"After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward," she said. "Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."

McCain's campaign immediately responded, saying the "Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates’ judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

The DNC later sent out a transcript of McCain's interview Monday with conservative Hugh Hewitt, during which he appeared to make the same mistake.

"As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq," he told Hewitt.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
__________________________________________

OOOPS!

Way to (mis)represent there buddy.

:clap:

[Khariz]

Am I the only one that doesn't find enough of a distinction between Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists to care that he made this mistake? Big whoop.

[Kranar]

Am I the only one that doesn't find enough of a distinction between Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists to care that he made this mistake?


It's the lack of understanding the distinction between Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists that now has Iraq in a civil war.

[Stanley Burrell]

Am I the only one that doesn't find enough of a distinction between Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists to care that he made this mistake? Big whoop.

HEY NOW, HEY NOW, HEAR WHAT I SAY NOW:

All non-white Arabs are al Qaeda, dizza'-durrrrr... Nothing but a bunch of liberal feminazi propaganda.

</Vicodin ± Limbaugh>

[Khariz]

It's the lack of understanding the distinction between Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists that now has Iraq in a civil war.

I'm saying that I understand the distinction, and that I don't care enough about the different to be bothered with condemning McCain for the mistake.

Sunni or Shiite, any *militant* radicals do not need to exist.

[Stanley Burrell]

Sunni or Shiite, any *militant* radicals do not need to exist.

Let's start by aiming the crosshairs at the president then.

Ahmajinadad, of course.

[Daniel]

I'm saying that I understand the distinction, and that I don't care enough about the different to be bothered with condemning McCain for the mistake.

Sunni or Shiite, any *militant* radicals do not need to exist.

This is a true statement. However, the ability to make the distinction is paramount in making that statement a reality.

[Khariz]

This is a true statement. However, the ability to make the distinction is paramount in making that statement a reality.

Right. And do you think McCain is actually incapable of making the distinction, or do you think he's just presently ignorant?

I think at best, he made a mistake, and at worst, he's presently ignorant. I don't think he's one of those old dogs that you can't teach new tricks. When he has more than campaign managers briefing him every day, he would sure be more on the ball. Stupid/ignorant mistake? Yes. No denying.

[Gan]

I think understanding the difference is a solid step forward in understanding possible solutions to their 'militant' existence.

Of course, we could just kill em all and let God/Allah sort them out.

[Daniel]

Right. And do you think McCain is actually incapable of making the distinction, or do you think he's just presently ignorant?

I think at best, he made a mistake, and at worst, he's presently ignorant. I don't think he's one of those old dogs that you can't teach new tricks. When he has more than campaign managers briefing him every day, he would sure be more on the ball. Stupid/ignorant mistake? Yes. No denying.

I'd personally say that given his position and the role he's played he should probably know these things.

However, I do think it may be a little unfair to make the judgement that he doesn't simply because he made a mistake. Yesterday at the office I kept referring to Goldwater-Nichols to Helms Burton only because I was tired and had other things on my mind. It happens.

[Khariz]

I think understanding the difference is a solid step forward in understanding possible solutions to their 'militant' existence.


I'm not entirely sure that's true. When the miltitude of reasons an organization is militant begins to reach beyond ONLY logical/revenge/territorial/etc reasons and starts to include religious excuses or justifications (even if the people in charge don't actually believe themselves), I'm not sure it's something we can correct with anything but eradication, as your italics put.

Then again, perhaps I just think eradication is easier than dealing with the problem.

[Daniel]

I'm not entirely sure that's true. When the miltitude of reasons an organization is militant begins to reach beyond ONLY logical/revenge/territorial/etc reasons and starts to include religious excuses or justifications (even if the people in charge don't actually believe themselves), I'm not sure it's something we can correct with anything but eradication, as your italics put.

Then again, perhaps I just think eradication is easier than dealing with the problem.

That's only because you have no appreciation of the situation and believe that you are intellectually superior (because you went to law school).

Therefore, you simply latch unto the first ridiculous notion that appears to make sense and throw some garbage behind it.

Muslim Extremist does not always equate to people who want to attack us, nor is it feasible or even possible to "eradicate" them. So, talking as such is nothing short of stupid.

[Khariz]

That's only because you have no appreciation of the situation and believe that you are intellectually superior (because you went to law school).

Therefore, you simply latch unto the first ridiculous notion that appears to make sense and throw some garbage behind it.

Muslim Extremist does not always equate to people who want to attack us, nor is it feasible or even possible to "eradicate" them. So, talking as such is nothing short of stupid.

Come on man, don't make me laugh. I'm obviously only talking about the ones that ARE trying to kill us. Not all of them. I'm not being unreasonable here.

And again, I DO have an appreciation for what's going on. Since you brought up my going to Law School, this topic is what I did my rigorous writing on. I'm thoroughly research filled. I'm talking about the extreme of the extreme who can do nothing but think of the next time they are going to attack, planning meticulously. I'm not talking about the average loony radical, who spouts shit, but has no intention of doing anything about it.

If I wanted the latter eradicated, I'd think half of the far christian right would need eradicated too.

[Daniel]

Then if you are truly "research filled" then you would know the circumstances surrounding the Sunni Awakening that is currently going on.

If we had adopted that attitude, that never would have happened.

Actually, we did adopt that attitude and it resulted in a lot of deaths on both sides with no clear conclusion.

[Warriorbird]

For somebody as smart as you theoretically are, Khariz, you say a lot of half-cocked stuff.

Our military isn't trained to fight politics but to fight wars... which I think is most of why the Iraq situation has been so messed up and so expensive.

[Khariz]

For somebody as smart as you theoretically are, Khariz, you say a lot of half-cocked stuff.



You do realize this is a Gemstone related *message board* right? I'm not here to write scholarly quips to you folks who call me names and tell me to fuck my mother in other threads.

I'm here to post one-liners and oversimplified statements. If you want me to draft a scholarly document for you, I can send you copies of one's I have already written, or draft new content here. I don't have time to do it for a couple weeks though.

The "half-cocked stuff" is intentional on my part, due to the place I'm typing it.

[Warriorbird]

Uh. I've never called you a name or told you to fuck your mother. I have a fair amount of respect for you.

Kill em all and let God sort em out is never going to fly in the Middle East though.

I do favor striking the ungoverned section of Pakistan myself... but you can find a middle ground between lowest common denominator and law review cites.

[Khariz]

Uh. I've never called you a name or told you to fuck your mother. I have a fair amount of respect for you.

Kill em all and let God sort em out is never going to fly in the Middle East though.

I do favor striking the ungoverned section of Pakistan myself... but you can find a middle ground between lowest common denominator and law review cites.

Oh yeah, I wasn't referring to you, I just meant that, in general, the atmosphere here is not conduscive to civil discussion.

Though I have to admit, this is the first time I have posted in a non-gemstone related thread on this board in ages. Perhaps I'm wrong about the real life discussions.

[Daniel]

....

[Blud]

Am I the only one that doesn't find enough of a distinction between Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists to care that he made this mistake? Big whoop.

No.

[BigWorm]

Am I the only one that doesn't find enough of a distinction between Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists to care that he made this mistake? Big whoop.

I think its important if you ever want to work towards a solution. Extremist shiites and sunnis hate each other as much as they hate us, so approaching them as one group is not going to work. Do you think fundamentalist protestants and conservative Catholics should be grouped together, because I am sure most members of both groups would feel uncomfortable with that conflation.

[Parkbandit]

For somebody as smart as you theoretically are, Khariz, you say a lot of half-cocked stuff.

Our military isn't trained to fight politics but to fight wars... which I think is most of why the Iraq situation has been so messed up and so expensive.


Many would say that Congress isn't trained to fight wars, but to fight politics.. which is most of why the Iraq situation has been so messed up and so expensive.

[BigWorm]

Many would say that Congress isn't trained to fight wars, but to fight politics.. which is most of why the Iraq situation has been so messed up and so expensive.

Congress controls the money. It does not control policy. Congress can ask the president to do something, but the executive branch is in control of the military.

[Gan]

Remember. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Parkbandit]

Congress controls the money. It does not control policy. Congress can ask the president to do something, but the executive branch is in control of the military.


Well thank god there was no pressure from Congress to do anything in Iraq.. and they let Bush run the military like he is charged to do.

[BigWorm]

Well thank god there was no pressure from Congress to do anything in Iraq.. and they let Bush run the military like he is charged to do.


What did they do that affected the policy that he enacted? The surge happened. Can you show me how congress affected the way the war was fought?

[Parkbandit]

What did they do that affected the policy that he enacted? The surge happened. Can you show me how congress affected the way the war was fought?


Are you serious? Have you simply refused to read anything political over the past 5 years?

[BigWorm]

Are you serious? Have you simply refused to read anything political over the past 5 years?

Wow, you offered a really great example there. Seriously, congress has postured, but in case you don't remember, congress was controlled by the republicans until recently. The democrats say this and that, but they haven't actually done anything to change the president's policy in Iraq.

[Gan]

Wow, you offered a really great example there. Seriously, congress has postured, but in case you don't remember, congress was controlled by the republicans until recently. The democrats say this and that, but they haven't actually done anything to change the president's policy in Iraq.

I'm sure all the posturing, press releases, fights in both chambers, and delays to the spending bills has had no effect on our troops, their morale, or has affected whom we are fighting in any way. Not to mention what effect its had on the American people...

[Daniel]

I'm pretty sure that the soldiers on the group weren't not doing their job because they were upset over congress wrangling over money.

[BigWorm]

I'm pretty sure that the soldiers on the group weren't not doing their job because they were upset over congress wrangling over money.

Thank you. My whole point is that members of congress posturing and debating has little to do with what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

[Gan]

I'm sure it has/had an impact. Whats debateable is to what extent. And notice that the soldiers arent the only part of that equation.

[BigWorm]

I'm sure it has/had an impact. Whats debateable is to what extent. And notice that the soldiers arent the only part of that equation.
So would you agree that it's not congress that is fighting this war, unlike ParkTroll?

Many would say that Congress isn't trained to fight wars, but to fight politics.. which is most of why the Iraq situation has been so messed up and so expensive.

[Parkbandit]

So would you agree that it's not congress that is fighting this war, unlike ParkTroll?

LOL Parktroll. That's funny..coming from you.

And I never stated that Congress is fighting the war. Maybe you should learn2 read just a tad bit better.

[Daniel]

I'm sure it has/had an impact. Whats debateable is to what extent. And notice that the soldiers arent the only part of that equation.

Based on what?

[Gan]

Based on what?

Based on news reports demonstrating low morale among soldiers, based on increased pandering and limelighting by politicians who seek every opportunity to stand in front of the media and claim the war is lost, based on news reports coming from Iraq demonstrating that the enemy uses information gleaned from congressional leaks to the media and other media coverage/sensationalism as to how wrong the war is.

Surely this is something you're not unfamiliar with...

[Daniel]

I'm pretty sure that low morale has everything to do with fighting a war in 120 degree weather and close to nothing to do with what goes on inc ongress. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most soldiers make it a point to not give a fuck or pay attention to what politicians do.

I was in Iraq during the 2004 elections and I can't remember a single time that anyone, ever, brought them up.

[Gan]

I'm pretty sure that low morale has everything to do with fighting a war in 120 degree weather and close to nothing to do with what goes on inc ongress. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most soldiers make it a point to not give a fuck or pay attention to what politicians do.

I was in Iraq during the 2004 elections and I can't remember a single time that anyone, ever, brought them up.

Again...


I'm sure it has/had an impact. Whats debateable is to what extent. And notice that the soldiers arent the only part of that equation.

[Daniel]

What else is apart of the equation?

[Gan]

What else is apart of the equation?

See post #36

[Parkbandit]

Dear Gan.

Daniel was there in 2004 during the elections and spoke to every soldier. Stop paying attention to some of the news reports and just take his word for it. Congress has been nothing but helpful towards the war effort and have supported them from day 1 and continue to support them today.

[Gan]

Dear Gan.

Daniel was there in 2004 during the elections and spoke to every soldier. Stop paying attention to some of the news reports and just take his word for it. Congress has been nothing but helpful towards the war effort and have supported them from day 1 and continue to support them today.

LOL

His last post did remind me of Dave's I R ARMY, U R NOT ARMY U KNOW NOTHING.

[Daniel]

Uh...You said Soldiers are not only part of the equation. So, I'm asking you what else would have an effect. The "Enemy" using news reports is still affecting the "soldiers".

There is a serious lack of causation between low morale and what congress has done. So far you've shown no link other that what you want to believe. So, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying it based upon my own experiences. Afterall, don't experiences influence our opinions? Isn't that what you use to discredit TheE's views? Riiight...

[Gan]

Uh...You said Soldiers are not only part of the equation. So, I'm asking you what else would have an effect. The "Enemy" using news reports is still affecting the "soldiers".

There is a serious lack of causation between low morale and what congress has done. So far you've shown no link other that what you want to believe. So, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying it based upon my own experiences. Afterall, don't experiences influence our opinions? Isn't that what you use to discredit TheE's views? Riiight...

Right, so lacking any definitive studies and empircal data points we should just not consider it.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it?

Hey, if its good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me. ;)

PS. Way to FOCUS on one small part of the idea thrown out instead of the equation as a whole. I think thats called pulling a "Latrin".

[Daniel]

Yea. I focused on the SOLDIER part.

My bad.

I'm not saying don't consider it, but I wouldn't rush out to put it out as fact if I didn't have any experience in the modern day army or inlet into their psyche or mentality.

Maybe that stems from my desire to not talk out of my ass.

[Gan]

Yea. I focused on the SOLDIER part.

My bad.

I'm not saying don't consider it, but I wouldn't rush out to put it out as fact if I didn't have any experience in the modern day army or inlet into their psyche or mentality.

Maybe that stems from my desire to not talk out of my ass.

Maybe that stems from being insecure to have a discussion and throw out ideas that arent sourced, catalogued, or plotted along a graph. You know, thinking outside the box wont hurt you.

And if you go back and reread the post, I wasnt touting that as the absolute fact.

As much as what I threw out there cant be empiracally proved, they cant be empiracally disproved as having NO (ZERO, 0%) effect in any way whatsoever on the troops, on the strategies of our enemies, on public perception (national and global), and on the strategies our politicians make based on those perceptions.

Way to nitpick a null point in the larger picture.

:clap:

[Daniel]

Thinking outside of the box does not mean jumping to a conclusion that conveniently fits within your political agenda.

Thanks.

[Gan]

Thinking outside of the box does not mean jumping to a conclusion that conveniently fits within your political agenda.

Thanks.

You're right, we should never talk about things that might appear to be jumping to conclusions, and everything that is discussed here on the PC, especially in the politics folder, should be considered non-theroeretical and always based and rooted in absolute fact.

All non-sourced ideas, concepts, and suggestions are no longer welcome when discussing politics. Unless its from TheE or Daniel.

[Daniel]

Not at all, but I'd like something more than "I think this because it supports my rhetoric" So it must be true.

You could have provided a theory that was only slightly different from.

Step 1. Socks
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!!

and I have been happy.

[Gan]

Oh noeesss I wasn't 100% serious on a message board.

:(
...

[Gan]

Not at all, but I'd like something more than "I think this because it supports my rhetoric" So it must be true.

You could have provided a theory that was only slightly different from.

Step 1. Socks
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit!!

and I have been happy.

LOL, like the goal of my participation here on the PC is to make you happy.

ROFL

PS. Thanks for participating in the thread/discussion I made though.

:whistle:

[Daniel]

...

Any reason you transplanted that quote here?

[Gan]

I'll let you figure that one out.

[Daniel]

You think the internet is serious business? I knew that.

[Gan]

:)