McCain: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

[Andy]

How very juvenile of you. I post exact quotes from McCain, sourced with dates and links, and your great respons is name calling. They weren't "beliefs" expressed by me. They were QUOTES, EXACT WORD FOR WORD QUOTES, made by John McCain. Maybe you need to cure your own ignorance.

Show us again how intellectually-challenged you are, call me some more names. I can take the heat, and always enjoy watching someone make a fool of themselves. You're really quite amusing as you twist in the wind.

Name calling? No, I accurately assessed the response you gave to my documented evidence, that refuted your unsupportable crap. Let's review...

Iraqi's after Saddam was convicted. Apparently not having 'great joy and pleasure in Iraq' after getting 'this gastapo off of their backs'. Huh... seems you are the liar.

Jay Rockefeller, a democrat, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, released this committee report on intel for the Iraq war.

• Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
• Biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
• Chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
• Weapons of Mass Destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
• Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."
• Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
• Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
• Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"
• Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Oh looky, even your own democrats say you are a liar.... again.

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.


There is no proof that once Iraq itself is stabilized, that it will not have a positive lasting effect in the middle east. We already have very positive feedback from Iraqis there.

Apparently non-jubilant Iraqis, celebrating free elections in Iraq, and thanking the US for helping it to come about.

From Bet-Nahrain web site. Check it out to see how unhappy they were at us allowing them free elections.

You lied again.

We did win easily. Saddam's Iraqi forces were decimated and, Bagdad fell in weeks. The Saddam government was wiped out in a month at best. We won that war easy. We didn't count on having to fight with militias backed by Iran and Al Qaeda, but we have mushed them too now with the surge, that worked perfectly.

Liar liar liar. You obamabots are all liars.

Note... each of your pathetic claims were shot down by clear concise documented evidence. Your pathetic response to the documented evidence, was as lame as the original lies you posted.

Only one has even the chance to be valid. That being the claim that once everything is finished, it will bring a new stability to the middle east. This hasn't happened yet, but the job is not yet finished. Yes it may not happen. But saying it hasn't and therefore won't, is like the democrats in 2004 claiming Fannie Mae won't go bankrupt, because it hadn't yet.

 

[Andy]

Your problem is you take them out of context. Andy showed you, and I mentioned before the actual context of the quotes. You have ignored that critical part of the entire equation.

It is akin the Army saying well gosh, we do not need to use tanks in Iraq because they did not work well in Vietnam. The context changes everything, which you continually ignore.

You are trying to compare a quote from 2003, which actually came to pass, we were greeted well before we botched the occupation. Holding up a quote that was true, until new situations that were well out of control of McCain arose, is dubious at best.

In fact, prior to the war starting, an entire company of Iraqis heard gun fire and explosions, which turned out to be test fires, and thought the war had started. They promptly marched across the boarder to a British outpost, and attempted to surrender to the outpost. The war had not yet started, and the Brits were forced to send the soldiers back because they were not ready to accept surrendered troops.

Faced with this information, no one in government is going to assume this will be a hard fight.

No one anticipated the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda, nor the mass chaos of the power vacuum. Maybe they should have, and maybe we could have had better post-war Iraq plans. But it's pointless to play would have, could have, should have games now. We need to finish the remaining provinces, and eliminate the remains of terrorist still operating in northern Iraq. And finely turn over each province as the Iraqi government is able to take back local control, without alerting every terrorist of the exact day we will be leaving, so as to not give them a target to attack.

If we say we're leaving March 3rd, the opposition will lay low and grow their supplies, thus making everyone feel is though the problems are over. Then after we leave, they will start hostilities again. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam. We advertised we were leaving, and wouldn't come back. Then shockingly after we left, they attacked relentlessly until they defeated the nation we fought successfully to protect. Thank you democrats. Have you learned nothing?